Singapore (Rank 79) Has Poor Quality of Life Index
-
Final Score...58--Thanks.Very generous.
Never mind the figurs.I just want to keep this one as No.1--
SG is the lowest in infant mortality rate in the whole world.
U can keep all the other 100 marks in the world .Oh Baby.
Are you trying to say you are short-sighted? Birth is a very small part of life.
What good is lowest infant mortality with a fertility rate that dropped to 1.24?
Even if you had the lowest infant mortality, but life overall is stressful and overall the rest of your life is only ranked a low 58?
It's no wonder you only want this No.1, it fits in with your selective way of using certain facts and discarding the rest.
Is this the same method you used to ignore certain important questions posed to you such as those asked in military nuts, and also the the one about you using clones?
-
we security good, can riao lor
im surprised taiwan and some middle eastern countries win us
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Hong Kong has been the freeest economy in the world for 10 years.
U ask the graduate there.U will know the choice of jobs
less than SG.
Ranking cant put foods on the table.
The reality counts.
Like other rankings,they use their yard stick to measure.
Some SG pple will be happy that they find another good reason
to leave.Congra!!
45 75 60 39 42 78 53 100 39 58Cost of Living and economy each allocated max 15%,the rest each 10%.
Cost of Living 45
First world country of course not cheap.But our tax is very low
in first world,even u take GST into acct.
Leisure & Culture 75
If u include patrons of 4 D,then it is ok.
Economy 60
Besides,3.3 million of citizens and some 500,000 of PR,SG still
can feed 900,000 Foreigners working here.And they still give so low!!
They must forget SWF!!
Environment..39
How much land can we protect ?we only have 700km2.
But they forget we can collect water in our soil to provide 50%
for our needs.
Freedom 42
They are very generous.Thanks.
Health 78
SG is the lowest in infant mortality rate in the whole world.
Only half of Aussie!!
Are they mean the higher % in GDP for public health the better?Rubbish.
Infrastructure 53
If they calculate the passengers and goods throughput
in relationship to population and land areas,they will give us 101 marks.
Risk & Safety..100
But not to some professional and I- want -to save-everyone blogger.
Climate...39
Ha.How many places in the world without
earthquake nor
tsunami nor
typhoon nor
tornado nor
floodings nor
drought?
and only get 39?
Singapore is one of the few!!
Is the high rainfall/temperature a plus or minus?
Final Score...58--Thanks.Very generous.
Never mind the figurs.I just want to keep this one as No.1--
SG is the lowest in infant mortality rate in the whole world.
U can keep all the other 100 marks in the world .Oh Baby.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Health 78
Health (10%). In this category, we look at calorie consumption as a percentage of daily requirements, the number of people per doctor, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people, the percentage of the population with access to safe water, the infant mortality rate, life expectancy, and public health expenditure as a percentage of a country’s GDP.
SG is the lowest in infant mortality rate in the whole world.
Only half of Aussie!!
Are they mean the higher % in GDP for public health the better?Rubbish.
Don't understand what you meant by your statement "Only half of Aussie!!", as can be seen from the data, Australia had a score of 91 for health and Singapore 78, mathematically it's not half.
Alas the scoring system is not based soley on infant mortality rate, as can be seen from the explanation of the scoring system, they based it on a number of criterias, some of these factors are, number of people per doctor, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people and public expenditure as a percentage of a country's GDP.
If you look at doctors per 1,000 population, Singapore is 140 doctors per 100,000 population, whereas Australia is 247 doctors per 100,000 population. Isn't it better to have more doctors per population?
http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/58.html
As for hospital beds per 1,000 population, Singapore has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 population, whereas Australia has 7.4 hospital beds per 1,000 population. Isn't it better to have more hospital beds per 1,000 population?
(Data from The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2007 edition)
For your comment about higher GDP spending on healthcare being bad, then maybe you should consider what are the consequences if government has ZERO spending on healthcare. So essentially, does lower spending on healthcare means good, or higher spending on healthcare good?
The statistics I posted below are abit outdated, unfortunately WHO doesn't have public access data for the current few years. The best I could managed was 2005-2006, but I guess it could provide some kind of a reference as to the fairness of their scoring system.
I don't see their system bias in this aspect of the analysis. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if we have been the victim(s) of government propaganda to the point of rejecting concrete data. The government has an ulterior motive to manipulate data (propaganda) to it's convenience so as to pacify her citizens, what ulterior motive has this organisation reporting on the quality of life for 192 countries.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
Actually, I don't really care where Singapore ranked... But I am more interested in the way they rank. Read about some maslow hierarchy of needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
Basically, you will want to fill up the needs at the bottom before filling up those at the top, so you basically don't care about culture and arts unless you can fulfill your food and safety needs.
Which is why arts and culture is a consider a good gauge of a country's wellbeing, as they actually have the luxury to care about them. Just imagine the importance the iraqis give to arts compare to safety.
Think france deserved to be top in standard of living, with it's free and leisurely culture and relative shorter work hours. If you think of it that way, Singapore is somewhere in the middle, with it's stressful life in general.
Every generation will have to encounter "Maslow's hierachy of needs".
The "quality of life" for each generation will depend on how quickly each generation can reach the top of that hierachy of needs; or at which level it gets stuck without further progress over some tolerable span in time.
Depending on the peer pressure or societal influence, each may have different goals or ambitions; or different levels of drive and satisfaction - that will determine each person's perception in the "quality of life" attained, and voluntarily stopped further progress at differing points in Maslow's level of needs.
Maslow's model is only a road map in gauging the path in which one takes in Life to attain satisfaction - represented as the quality of life.
If Maslow's guide is followed as the basis to evaluate Singaporean's position, do you think that Singaporeans have reached the top rung of Maslow's model in SELF-ACTUALISATION - the top index in the Quality of Life measure ?
According to your wikipedia reference on Maslow - SELF-ACTUALISATION -
"is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can. Working toward fulfilling our potential, toward becoming all that we are capable of becoming".
Can SELF-ACTUALISATION be achieved by Singaporeans after 50 years as a nation moving from self-rule to independence, from a colonial entrepot to a financial, manufacturing and service centre ?
Has Singaporeans been allowed to achieve self-actualisation in a society in which a paternalistic system has been put in place - that forced Singaporeans to depend on the monopolistic enterprise of the Ruling Political Party bent on controlling and monopolising every aspects of political life of every Singaporean ?
When the Ruling Political Party removes the political rights of the Citizens - after being elected by the Citizens - can there be Quality of Life in the high index ?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Don't understand what you meant by your statement "Only half of Aussie!!", as can be seen from the data, Australia had a score of 91 for health and Singapore 78, mathematically it's not half.
Alas the scoring system is not based soley on infant mortality rate, as can be seen from the explanation of the scoring system, they based it on a number of criterias, some of these factors are, number of people per doctor, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people and public expenditure as a percentage of a country's GDP.
If you look at doctors per 1,000 population, Singapore is 140 doctors per 100,000 population, whereas Australia is 247 doctors per 100,000 population. Isn't it better to have more doctors per population?
http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/58.html
As for hospital beds per 1,000 population, Singapore has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 population, whereas Australia has 7.4 hospital beds per 1,000 population. Isn't it better to have more hospital beds per 1,000 population?
(Data from The Economist Pocket World in Figures 2007 edition)
Look at CIA figures then u know.
No point to quote this or that figure.
The reality counts,brother.
If u believe all these figures and rely on them to decide your
next dream country to settle.U will regret.
For example,some survey put SG as one of the worst 10 or 5 in
water substainability etc .But what is the reality?
SG is now water technology export country.
Later,we can export real water!!
Take a look for a suvey in tax in few countries.
http://www.mypaper.com.sg/
u may say the survey is fault because the repondents may not
know how tax system in the other subject countries work.
Doctors and beds
Yes.u are right.May i remind u also look at the accessiblty
of health system and the quality of hospitals also.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/4742599/public-hospitals-39-struggling-to-cope-39
(Oz)Public hospitals 'struggling to cope'
June 30, 2008, 5:42 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/4742599/public-hospitals-39-struggling-to-cope-39
pl post your sources
The report, published annually, shows there were 6.7 million presentations to emergency departments in 2006-07 - the equivalent of a third of the population.
......The average cost of treating a patient was $3,922.
......
The report also revealed waiting times for elective surgery.
The longest wait is for knee replacements - with a median wait of 162 days.
Septoplasty (113 days) and hip replacements (106 days) came in second and third.
.......Australian Medical Association president Rosanna Capolingua said the report showed the public hospital system was at breaking point.
She said the Rudd government had not done enough to fix the acute care system, and the report showed just how large that task was.
Ya.i know u will say SG medias are all controlled.
No bad news is allowed.
Ok ok.SG is not perfect.The food is hospitals is not as good as
5 stars hotels.
But have u stayed or vistited SG hospitals?
Take your Oz friends there for them to compare.
Before u decide your next dream country.
FYI.SG is building,not in the paper,a hospital in Yishun,
with another one later in Jurong or CCK.
One million foreigner patients seeking treatments here
last year cant be too wrong,
among them from western first world countries.
They cant wait there too long.
-
i will be labeled as anti--Oz if i say too much.
read the news for health care in Oz---
http://au.news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Hospitals&fr=yfp&ei=UTF-8
-
i'll just say this... life.. is what you make of it..
the way you guys put it as if the gabrament made you do a lot of things which cause you to be miserable...
whatever happened to making the decisions for yourselves to make yourselves happy? or are you saying that you are incapable of making those decisions yourselves?
i don't have much but i have enough to be content.. and i'm happy because i choose to be...
do you dare to make such a decision?
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
i'll just say this... life.. is what you make of it..
the way you guys put it as if the gabrament made you do a lot of things which cause you to be miserable...
whatever happened to making the decisions for yourselves to make yourselves happy? or are you saying that you are incapable of making those decisions yourselves?
i don't have much but i have enough to be content.. and i'm happy because i choose to be...
do you dare to make such a decision?
Ah bear oii ah bear,
We can fully understand your predicament as a civil servant. Afterall, you are one too honest to bite the hand that writes your pay cheques.
But unfortunately, most of us are private citizens and we do have expectations for the leaders.
If we only live our life like you want.. what is the purpose of having a gabrament ?
If they cannot lead then step down, so we may lead our life the way we want.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Are you trying to say you are short-sighted? Birth is a very small part of life.
What good is lowest infant mortality with a fertility rate that dropped to 1.24?
Even if you had the lowest infant mortality, but life overall is stressful and overall the rest of your life is only ranked a low 58?
It's no wonder you only want this No.1, it fits in with your selective way of using certain facts and discarding the rest.
Is this the same method you used to ignore certain important questions posed to you such as those asked in military nuts, and also the the one about you using clones?
Let me tell u.If u just calculate babies from parents both are SG citizens,
the rate will be lowers.CIA says 1.08.I have not checked it out yet.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The lowest infant mortality is just a small portion
in life.But how many time a couple will have a chance to have a baby
in life?This just show SG hospitals trys their best to improve.
So u know why so many foreign patients here.
But what do u want PAP to do?
Force married couples make love without protections
4 times a week under CCTV?
or u blame LKY asked pple stop at TWO when SG was very poor?
Oh.U followed CSJ!!
Or can we ban condoms in SG?
U just follow other pple surveys to live?
Cant u make your own judgements?
Or years later,u tell your kids that your migration decisions
based on other pple suvery findings?
Which country not stressed?
Share with us here?
What is the damn freedom and democracy for when
occasionally there are shootings in your country,
though a big country.
Pl be informed that Oz also allow gun carry---by bad guys.
And quite common.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/shot-in-garden-manhunt-launched/2008/07/01/1214677995534.html
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23939558-661,00.html
-
best place to work and live but ranked 79 in quality of life?
-
This just goes to show how bad the propaganda in Singapore is. We are constantly bombarded everyday how good this heaven for ass-sniffing dogs is. The truth is that it is "grab their money to stress them out so they are forced to work overtime and who cares about their quality of life" country run by dishonorable and unworthy despots.
-
One more thing, grab their money and lose it to foreigners.
BARCLAYS (BARC.L)On Jul 1: 281.50 p
10.00 (3.43%) -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
If we look at it positively, we are still 2 ranks ahead of Malaysia.
Malaysia is crud, i would not be proud to be only 2 ranks ahead of Malaysia -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Look at CIA figures then u know.
No point to quote this or that figure.
The reality counts,brother.
If u believe all these figures and rely on them to decide your
next dream country to settle.U will regret.
For example,some survey put SG as one of the worst 10 or 5 in
water substainability etc .But what is the reality?
SG is now water technology export country.
Later,we can export real water!!
Take a look for a suvey in tax in few countries.
http://www.mypaper.com.sg/
u may say the survey is fault because the repondents may not
know how tax system in the other subject countries work.
Doctors and beds
Yes.u are right.May i remind u also look at the accessiblty
of health system and the quality of hospitals also.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/4742599/public-hospitals-39-struggling-to-cope-39
(Oz)Public hospitals 'struggling to cope'
June 30, 2008, 5:42 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/4742599/public-hospitals-39-struggling-to-cope-39
pl post your sources
Ya.i know u will say SG medias are all controlled.
No bad news is allowed.
Ok ok.SG is not perfect.The food is hospitals is not as good as
5 stars hotels.
But have u stayed or vistited SG hospitals?
Take your Oz friends there for them to compare.
Before u decide your next dream country.
FYI.SG is building,not in the paper,a hospital in Yishun,
with another one later in Jurong or CCK.
One million foreigner patients seeking treatments here
last year cant be too wrong,
among them from western first world countries.
They cant wait there too long.
First of all there are merits to the Australian Free Healthcare system that Singapore lacks. e.g. If say you fall sick now, you have used up all your medisave and cash. You walk into SGH and tell them you have no money to pay. Do you think they will attend to you, provide medication, hospital bed, consultation, test and surgery? I ever asked the admin staff in charge of medisave, I told them "I don't have any more money. Can I just use my medisave to pay for outpatient treatment?" They said, "No".Let's look at this objectively, we have 140 doctors per 100,000 population, whereas Australia has 247 doctors per 100,000 population. Which means our doctors have to work almost twice as hard to see as many patients as the Australian doctors. Either that or, the only other reasonable explanation is, Singapore doctors have less patients to attend to, because the majority of them can't afford treatment, that's why they forgo treatment. With less patients for the Singapore doctors, it would be easier to maintain a shorter waiting time than the Australian doctors.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/58.html
Both healthcare system have its merits. The Australian system has it's merits because it leaves no man behind, even if you are penniless, healthcare will be accorded to you. A situation where something is free leads to abuse by people, with more citizens going for checkups and outpatient treatment, the patient number grows, therefore the long wait for treatment.
The article cited by you also states that, it's because of reduction of healthcare spending by the Howard government that resulted in the long waiting times. The new PM might be emphasizing extreme issues to make his point about healthcare, does it mean that for all cases it's always that long. Also isn't there more cause to increase public health spending rather than what you claim, spending less on healthcare is better. It is better for the Singapore government context because they place the onus on you to maintain your own medical bills.
"After 11 years of Liberal neglect - including $1 billion slashed from public hospitals in 2003 - there is much to be done," Ms Roxon said in a statement.
For the Singapore system, you have to be financially secure to be able to afford the treatment. If you don't have money, you need to beg, borrow or steal in order to get treatment. The waiting time is shorter, normally 1-2 months wait for outpatient treatment.
The merits for Singapore system is, the wait is 30 to 60 days, but you must be able to afford the hospital charges. No money no talk.
The merits of the Australian system is, it is free, but waiting time might be longer, but waiting times for cases differ, depending on your affliction. If the the doctor specialising in the particular area of medicine is rare, then longer waiting times are expected. Singapore system wait long long also don't have. ç‰ä¹…久都没有.
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/288529?page=3
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Let me tell u.If u just calculate babies from parents both are SG citizens,
the rate will be lowers.CIA says 1.08.I have not checked it out yet.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The lowest infant mortality is just a small portion
in life.But how many time a couple will have a chance to have a baby
in life?This just show SG hospitals trys their best to improve.
You are clearly talking rubbish here.
Firstly Singapore is a CITY STATE, hence it's infant mortality rates are what you'd expect from a urbanized CITY with relatively good medical care, because it is all easily accessable in the small island.
Hence's it's EXPECTED that it has to have a low infant morality, because of the lack of rural areas and births that other nations have to contend with. When other nations tally their infant mortality, they have to factor in births in rural and non urban areas which will certainly drive up the figure.
Hence Singapore's low infant mortality rate is not due to actual good care, but more of geographic size.
But the most shocking thing is that how Singapore, being a small nation and hence making it very easy to make healthcare accessable to its population can actually score WORSE then many other nations, especially Australia.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
or u blame LKY asked pple stop at TWO when SG was very poor?
Oh.U followed CSJ!!
Or can we ban condoms in SG?
What CSJ? Even the PAP agrees with CSJ on this one.
Our government admitted that the past population policies were shortsighted, are you going to contradict them now?
As many pointed out, our population growth will NATURALLY fall as the country develops, taking steps to hurry this up will lead to an overshoot, which has created the dismal figure of 1.24 that we achieved.
The PAP itself gave the answer... the population policies are wrong. The fact that we have a fertility rate that dropped to 1.24 and nothing the government does is raising it much to a replacement level speaks volumes.
U just follow other pple surveys to live?
Cant u make your own judgements?
How come you like to follow other's media articles without thinking for yourself in that case?
Like STK 40mm is the first in the world and all the nonsense?
Please, a survey is a survey.
But you still haven't answered the question one bit, why did Singapore score so BADLY?
You attempts to justify the score do not answer the question at all, you are telling us that the CIA is blind and that we are right with very shallow, paper-thin arguments. Our healthcare is rated overall worse and all you can come up with is Infant Mortality? Please, it's not working at all.
Or years later,u tell your kids that your migration decisions
based on other pple suvery findings?
Which country not stressed?
Share with us here?
What is the damn freedom and democracy for when
occasionally there are shootings in your country,
though a big country.
Pl be informed that Oz also allow gun carry---by bad guys.
And quite common.
How many Australians are at really at risk of a shooting in their lifetime?
You are commiting the spotlight fallacy here.
The Spotlight fallacy is committed when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. This line of “reasoning” has the following form:
1. Xs with quality Q receive a great deal of attention or coverage in the media. 2. Therefore all Xs have quality Q.
This line of reasoning is fallacious since the mere fact that someone or something attracts the most attention or coverage in the media does not mean that it automatically represents the whole population. For example, suppose a mass murderer from Old Town, Maine, received a great deal of attention in the media. It would hardly follow that everyone from the town is a mass murderer.
The Spotlight fallacy derives its name from the fact that receiving a great deal of attention or coverage is often referred to as being in the spotlight. It is similar to Hasty Generalization, Biased Sample and Misleading Vividness because the error being made involves generalizing about a population based on an inadequate or flawed sample. The Spotlight Fallacy is a very common fallacy. This fallacy most often occurs when people assume that those who receive the most media attention actually represent the groups they belong to. For example, some people began to believe that all those who oppose abortion are willing to gun down doctors in cold blood simply because those incidents received a great deal of media attention. Since the news media typically cover people or events that are unusual or exceptional, it is somewhat odd for people to believe that such people or events are representative.
Examples
- I wouldn't like to go to America because of all the gun crime; we see it on the news all the time.
- Muslims are always in the news blowing other people up; so all (or most) Muslims are terrorists.
- Doctor: Why don't patients make some effort to look after themselves? My surgery is full of people who eat, drink, smoke and don't get any exercise. Of course he may have many more patients who do look after themselves and don't often turn up in his surgery; there's also the possibility that the patients who do look after themselves will be less likely to turn up in his surgery because of the fact that they take care of themselves and are healthier than those who don't.
- Why do young people all take drugs and go around mugging old ladies? You read about it in the paper all the time!
Child: When I grow up I want to be a singer. Have you seen how much money those pop-stars make?!What you are trying to do is to instead of relying on surveys that actually try to find out the TRUE picture of things, you are forming your picture of things from bits and pieces of bad news from the media... and of course bad news gets reported. Who reports about the millions of Aussies that lead normal and happy lives in Australia?
Who is the one forming the wrong picture here?
Using your logic I can also say:
"What is the damn freedom and democracy in SG for when
occasionally there are parang attacks in SG country,
though a small country.
Pl be informed that SG allow parang carry---by bad guys.
And quite common."
So how now lionnoisy? Nothing to say liao?
I can see why you are so scared of guns, given you don't seem to have any idea on how they work by your posts in Military Nuts.
-
I do agree in a certain sense that Singapore has a lower quality of life in many senses. Maybe not so bad like some over here like to portray it but it is true.
But what always amaze me is that how alot of people here, when they see an article somewhere that talks about the good of Singapore, dismiss it as media propanganda but when they see something that reinforces their point of Singapore being bad, they embrace the media with open arms. Talk abt an unbias discussion haha.
-
Go and read the thoughts of the man who rules Singapore:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
Imagine this person is your boss.
You are the employee.
How on earth to have good quality of life, you tell me with this bastard ruling over you?
Mental torture enough to depress you already, under this type of fucker.
-
I like this one:
"Please do not assume that you can change governments. Young people don't understand this" -- MM Lee Kuan Yew on the results of the 2006 election
- Wise words from leader for life Lee Kuan Yew
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1YJLwM4iPk
-
Hiak hiak hiak, first world ministers give people a poor quality of life. As such, I support to cut down their pay and downgrade them to third world ministers.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Hiak hiak hiak, first world ministers give people a poor quality of life. As such, I support to cut down their pay and downgrade them to third world ministers.
Many people have suggested adopting a certain KPI to measure ministers' performance and tie their salary level to such KPI. That will be the best solution to our long-standing issue over ministers' pay scale. If collectively all the ministers succeeded in raising the quality of life based on such international agency's assessment all the ministers will be justified to receive the minimum of S$600,000.00 pa. (which is already overly generous taking into account USA president's or China' PM pay scale).
Should any one of the ministers score exceptional KPI measured by his ministry's performance, another S$300,000.00 can be added as incentive or performance bonus.
Any ministers who failed in his ministry's KPI will have his S$600,000.00 reduced by 10% for each point of failure. WKS for example should receive not more than $600,000.00 less 10% i.e. $540,000.00 pa. Bonus should not be higher that 3 months as they are all iron-rice-bowl employees not easily losing their jobs due to market downturn or poor company result.
If not sure about the ministers' pay scale refer to the next GE as a referendum with properly phrased quantum to enable proper sanction by the citizens.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
Many people have suggested adopting a certain KPI to measure ministers' performance and tie their salary level to such KPI. That will be the best solution to our long-standing issue over ministers' pay scale. If collectively all the ministers succeeded in raising the quality of life based on such international agency's assessment all the ministers will be justified to receive the minimum of S$600,000.00 pa. (which is already overly generous taking into account USA president's or China' PM pay scale).
Should any one of the ministers score exceptional KPI measured by his ministry's performance, another S$300,000.00 can be added as incentive or performance bonus.
Any ministers who failed in his ministry's KPI will have his S$600,000.00 reduced by 10% for each point of failure. WKS for example should receive not more than $600,000.00 less 10% i.e. $540,000.00 pa. Bonus should not be higher that 3 months as they are all iron-rice-bowl employees not easily losing their jobs due to market downturn or poor company result.
If not sure about the ministers' pay scale refer to the next GE as a referendum with properly phrased quantum to enable proper sanction by the citizens.
Who is going to implement the KPI? PAP is controlling their own pay cheque. PAP is making themselves not acountable to anyone.
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Who is going to implement the KPI? PAP is controlling their own pay cheque. PAP is making themselves not acountable to anyone.
This is the least of the whole issue if we can get the rationale settled broadly first. The Suggestion of tying the ministers' salaries to mean wages and KPI has been given by many people and this is found quite fair and acceptable because it will definitely avoid artful legal corruptions using biased comparison, fear or legality (parliamentary MPs voting for their own salary quantum is definitely a conflict of interest and immoral even if its decision is legal) tactics have been given by many people and this suggestion is quite widely accepted.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
This is the least of the whole issue if we can get the rationale settled broadly first. The Suggestion of tying the ministers' salaries to mean wages and KPI has been given by many people and this is found quite fair and acceptable because it will definitely avoid artful legal corruptions using biased comparison, fear or legality (parliamentary MPs voting for their own salary quantum is definitely a conflict of interest and immoral even if its decision is legal) tactics have been given by many people and this suggestion is quite widely accepted.
So far has anyone approached minister to bring this up to be a topic considers for discussion in parliament?
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
Many people have suggested adopting a certain KPI to measure ministers' performance and tie their salary level to such KPI. That will be the best solution to our long-standing issue over ministers' pay scale. If collectively all the ministers succeeded in raising the quality of life based on such international agency's assessment all the ministers will be justified to receive the minimum of S$600,000.00 pa. (which is already overly generous taking into account USA president's or China' PM pay scale).
Should any one of the ministers score exceptional KPI measured by his ministry's performance, another S$300,000.00 can be added as incentive or performance bonus.
Any ministers who failed in his ministry's KPI will have his S$600,000.00 reduced by 10% for each point of failure. WKS for example should receive not more than $600,000.00 less 10% i.e. $540,000.00 pa. Bonus should not be higher that 3 months as they are all iron-rice-bowl employees not easily losing their jobs due to market downturn or poor company result.
If not sure about the ministers' pay scale refer to the next GE as a referendum with properly phrased quantum to enable proper sanction by the citizens.
Not considering the bias against the government in your usual posts and also the difficulty in implementing a seemingly fair KPI system to please majority of the people, your suggestion at least is a meaningful one and I do agree with the rationale behind your suggestion.