Do MPs here serve as directors in Local companies as well?
-
I'm curious.
Beside getting paid for being MPs, are they also had appointments of director in local companies? any ideas?
Regards, -
Definitely yes.
There are a large number of MPs who are directors of local companies. Apart from directorships, many MPs also hold down other jobs (many of them are still practising lawyers, for example). Unlike in countries such as the UK, for example, being an MP in Singapore is not a full time job. I guess Singaporean MPs are just not expected to work that hard for their constituents!
I think MPs only have to give up their 'day jobs', as it were, if and when they become ministers. -
agreeOriginally posted by subudei:Definitely yes.
There are a large number of MPs who are directors of local companies. Apart from directorships, many MPs also hold down other jobs (many of them are still practising lawyers, for example). Unlike in countries such as the UK, for example, being an MP in Singapore is not a full time job. I guess Singaporean MPs are just not expected to work that hard for their constituents!
I think MPs only have to give up their 'day jobs', as it were, if and when they become ministers. -
i think not only that.
the appointments of directorships are mostly to government linked companies GLCs only.
any other pieces of information.
You can guess what their monthly salary is with all these extras. -
got.....
but they are jus sitting directors or directors-in-name......
they dun make key decisions for the company though.......
the company "invite" them to put the name on the board so it looks impressive and make it easier to pull strings..... -
There are those who are more actively involved also, example, Banyan Tree, Hyflux etc..
And in just for related readings, maybe you would like to refer to the Temasak Holding thread too.
My favourite SC thread.
-
so how is this different from us, japan or malaysia?
-
As I mentioned above, in virtually every other country in the world, being a Member of Parliament or Congressman / Congresswoman or Senator is a full-time job.Originally posted by nismoS132:so how is this different from us, japan or malaysia?
These national-level representatives are not allowed to hold down other jobs or directorships, they are expected to devote themselves full-time to serving the interests of their constitutents.
Only local-level councillors, e.g. town hall representatives, etc are allowed to work in other jobs while in office. Once a politician moves into national-level representation, he / she is expected to have no other jobs or appointments, because the duties and responsibilities of their political office are supposed to be particularly onerous, and also because any other jobs they hold down may generate conflicts of interest with their political obligations.
As a previous poster suggested, many companies in Singapore probably try very hard to get an MP to sit on their board of directors. Having an MP on its board of directors would effectively allow a company to extend its influence into Parliament, in an extremely blatant way!
Can you imagine what would happen if an MP who also sits as a director of say, a telecoms company, were to stand up in Parliament one day and propose a Bill to give all telecoms companies major tax relief? Wouldn't any right thinking person believe that there would be something seriously wrong with that situation?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that sort of thing already happens in our Parliament, it's just that we're not allowed to hear about it.
In any other civilised country, this would be considered utterly scandalous, and a gross perversion of the democratic process. Parliamentarians are supposed to represent the interests of the people who elected them, not the interests of corporate masters. -
i remember a certain US congressman or senator was in the news recently because his company had shifted some operations to china. and he was supposed to be opposed to outsourcing.
-
That was probably his EX-company, or a company based in his state, or a company that had made significant contributions to his last campaign.Originally posted by nismoS132:i remember a certain US congressman or senator was in the news recently because his company had shifted some operations to china. and he was supposed to be opposed to outsourcing. -
y dun u post a link to the article here, and perhaps let others read it?Originally posted by nismoS132:i remember a certain US congressman or senator was in the news recently because his company had shifted some operations to china. and he was supposed to be opposed to outsourcing. -
Mmmm.. Seems to me that the MPs are not doing much to help the people who voted in. More willing to help the corporate folks.
-
being an MP is not exactly a job. They get something like an allowance i think, not sure if they are paid. the allowance is supposed to allow them to employ a secretary, and other administrative costs they incurr.
i'm totally unsure on this, only hear from other ppl -
MPs do help out in many aspects of the civillain lives.
Just that the work that they do tend to be more low profile and are usually pertaining to the more 'common' few -e.g helping poor residents get grants and stuff.
And as usual, we can expect all the labor to go unkown when the residents get what they ask for.
Only in cases whereby one of them can't deliver what a resident has asked for, and hell get raised, do the public attention then like to jump in and start screaming foul play or incompetence at them.
Not exactly an easy job.............. -
Hmmm....maybe the PAP has been reading this thread (what am I saying, of course they have):
http://www.straitstimes.asiaone.com.sg/latest/story/0,4390,248225,00.html?
Goh to MPs: Keep public, private interests separate
PRIME Minister Goh Chok Tong on Wednesday reminded Members of Parliament belonging to the People's Action Party that they should keep their business and employment interests separate from their service and duties as MPs.
He added that the decision to take up such positions was solely that of the MPs, and that the Party would not - and could not - vet or approve these decisions.
Noting that it had been several years since he last wrote to MPs on the matter and that many MPs were relatively new, he said he had decided to revisit the issue.
His Thursday letter to party MPs explained that he was updating and consolidating his previous comments on the matter and revising the reporting requirements for MPs who take up company directorships.
Mr Goh, who is also the Secretary-General of the PAP, noting that MPs were increasingly being invited to serve on the boards of private companies, wrote: 'This is a good sign that private sector companies value PAP MPs' integrity and service, and reflects the high standing of the Party and of PAP MPs in general.
'The Party supports this practice, provided MPs rigorously separate their private and public responsibilities.'
Whether making public statements on behalf of the companies they serve, raising questions in Parliament or dealing with government departments or public officers, they should make clear their interests and whether they are speaking as MPs or in their private, professional or business capacity.
Warning MPs who are in business or sit on company boards to be 'especially vigilant', he said they must not exploit their public position or close contacts with ministers or their access to Government departments to lobby for their business interest or for their employers' benefit.
MPs also should not solicit for directorships, wrote Mr Goh, lest they appear to be exploiting their political position to benefit themselves.
They should also not sit on the boards of companies owned or chaired by grassroots leaders they have appointed, because this might give rise to the perception that the MP is obligated to the grassroots leader.
And while MPs will continue to have access to ministers who are their parliamentary colleagues, MPs cannot expect policies or the decisions of ministries to be changed without first looking at the merits of the MPs' case.
Mr Goh also reminded MPs that they were to keep the party Whip informed of all the directorships that they hold - a requirement since 2001 - and that they have till the end of January each year to declare their director's fees.
He also warned his party's MPs to be on guard against companies who invite them to serve as directors, 'hoping that this will facilitate their business interactions with the government, or lend respectability to their operations', and said they should not sit on the boards of companies owned or chaired by grassroots leaders they have appointed.
The advice for MPs wondering if a directorship may adversely impact his political life: 'Where he has any doubt, he should decline involvement.' -
Well if they truly are keeping tabs on this forum, then isn't it a good thing?Originally posted by subudei:Hmmm....maybe the PAP has been reading this thread (what am I saying, of course they have):
People have been complaining that their views are not being cared about or listened to.
So now they are.
Improvement there, ain't it? -
Eeeerrrr.....yeeeesssss....Originally posted by [ Neo ]:Well if they truly are keeping tabs on this forum, then isn't it a good thing?
People have been complaining that their views are not being cared about or listened to.
So now they are.
Improvement there, ain't it? -
Side tracking a little: I understand that some here fear that this forum being monitored will lead to their privacy being compromised. However, I do feel that this is akin to speaking out in public: People are able to put your face to your comments.
If the proper people see the comments and act on it (especially if the suggestions are perfectly reasonable), then we should be happy, as we have indirectly contributed to the betterment of our country. However, I do notice that certain bureaucrats have a tendency to steal ideas garned from online discussion boards, and pass it off as their own. It is inevitable, given the less than forth-front nature of people on forums about themselves, it is easy for these people to do so. That is the risk we must accept in the aim in making ourselves heard by the relevant parties. -
do you work for an MP, or sth?Originally posted by [ Neo ]:MPs do help out in many aspects of the civillain lives.
Just that the work that they do tend to be more low profile and are usually pertaining to the more 'common' few -e.g helping poor residents get grants and stuff.
And as usual, we can expect all the labor to go unkown when the residents get what they ask for.
Only in cases whereby one of them can't deliver what a resident has asked for, and hell get raised, do the public attention then like to jump in and start screaming foul play or incompetence at them.
Not exactly an easy job..............
why dun u give an example of such a "labor"? besides, i think giving grants is the job of an MP, anyway...
the pikamaster -
Why of course, senior MPs and ministers are ALL holding directorships especially in GLCs.
Many long serving MPs become millionaires by the time they retire.
In fact a recent report in newspaper mentioned specifically that MPs are in big demand as board directors.
Do you seriously think MPs work for our sakes? MPs kissing babies and sweeping HDB voids decks are just part of charade concocted by cunning politicians running this country. -
Originally posted by miong:
If you think it is such a cushy job, why dun you take part in the next election and become MP yourself ?
Why of course, senior MPs and ministers are [b]ALL holding directorships especially in GLCs.
Most long serving MPs become millionaires by the time they retire.
In fact a recent report in newspaper mentioned specifically that MPs are in big demand as board directors.
Do you seriously think MPs work for our sakes? MPs kissing babies and sweeping HDB voids decks are just part of charade concocted by cunning politicians running this country.[/b] -
yes not oni one, some even have 13 directorships to be exactOriginally posted by listen2u:I'm curious.
Beside getting paid for being MPs, are they also had appointments of director in local companies? any ideas?
Regards,
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=84204 -
Is it of any use to legislate supervisory directors for listed companies,
If the 3.0 millions lost by Asia Pacific Brewery cannot be discovered on time,
If SIA' s account executive who pocketed millions cannot be unveiled in accountable and transparent processes these supervisory directors are supposed to introduce.
Begin with doable work processes,
Corporations and government departments will be better supervised.
Without paying millions in directors' fees. -
How do we prevent MPs acting as directors of private companies to use insider knowledge from various ministries they are involved in for private sector purposes? Isn't this amounting to irregularities under official secret regulations?