Be realistic and compares apple with apple. Alvin Yeo brought out an interesting point, that the political leaders of UK and US came from wealthy background and could afford to take lower salary. He quoted a few British politicians with net worth of 4 or 5 million pounds with the Cameron’s waiting to inherit a 30m pound fortune. For those with 4m or 5m pounds, actually ‘sub sub suey’ compare to our politician’s wealth.
The American leaders are worth more, in the region of $100m or $200m. So they can afford to take in lesser salaries. This is an excellent point.
I do not know how wealthy are our ministers, but I think they are worth not less than the Brits and Americans, except for a few. Or they were not that rich before joining politics.
What is important is that if we want to attract the best, the rich or big income earners, we must go for it, get the really rich to serve. And the irony is that the really rich in the US and UK don’t need to be fed more to be fatter. Are our really rich the same as them, or they are different, that they need to be fatter cats? Even without taking the calculator or computer, one can easily conclude that the top 1000 high income earners would worth as much as the British and American leaders and should not be eyeing for more money.
The whole argument seems to go round and round. They are so rich, they need not be paid so much. And then we need to attract these very rich and need to pay them more? They would not be happy with less? Maybe as a non talent, I am unable to grasp the brilliance or logic in the argument. Really pai seh.