Just because someone used the basic salary for comparison, it does not mean that everyone must use the same for comparison and analysis. One must know what is the intent of the discussion, comparison or analysis. If it is just a theoretical exercise to compare for the sake of comparing or argument, then no matter. Just compare anything, everything or nothing. It is just a comparison for comparison sake without any specific objective.
What is the real intent of the comparison of the Salary Review Committee’s recommendation? Is it to compare how much our ministers are being paid with other leaders? Is it to compare how much they are getting now and before?
Using the basic salary as a reference point for comparison is a deception. Another committee can recommend a package with $30k pm basic salary but add on other allowances and bonuses to give a bigger gross salary and those using the basic will be saying it is so little, such a big cut, even less than Obama.
How foolish can daft Sinkies be if they can be led to see what people want them to see, and think what people want them to think? In the ministerial salary revision and recommendation, it is the gross amount that is material, not the basic salary.
I do not want to waste more time explaining why comparing the basic salary is misleading. If Sinkies are so daft and cannot tell the difference between the real and the deception, they deserve to be led by the nose and be blissfully delirious. They say ignorant is bliss. What is worst is unthinking but believing to be intelligent and spent so much time and effort on a wrong premise that will lead them to a wrong conclusion.
Pathetic.
PS. Own target, own time fire! Who sets the target?
5 comments:
Since the Party is not forthcoming being transparent regarding the high salary the opposition parties have a duty to bring the absolute truth to the people.
There is no way for politicians like ministers and MPs to compare their salaries with that of private businessmen like bankers, stock brokers, developers and professional people like lawyers and doctors. The latter category has risk ventured into the wilderness of the business world with every cent of their own capital and therefore no one should be envious of their success if by their own hard work and talent they reap millions in profits and by the same ethics no one should curse them if they fail. Whereas the politicians just form a gang party to grab political power purportedly to serve the people and the country but in actual fact many or most of them go in to self serve their own interest and that is to enrich themselves at the expense of the people and the country.
Wake up the daft Singaporeans and don't be deceived any more.
SG
I think when people begin to realize that brain power is useless without brawn power, we will stop perverse payment to CEOs and Ministers etc etc.
Seriously, your ingenious iPad is useless without the lowly consumer. Your great vision or idea will not come to fruition without the lowly paid worker.
To say that the commissioner worked hard to get to the top and should be rewarded with king's ransom is an insult to the man in street who worked as hard and was paid subsistence wages.
The difference here is not hard work. The difference is hierarchy.
Maybe we need a revolution to change these perverse monetary values, and the oppressive hierachy, we have been blindly subscribing?
I think 60% of Singaporeans will object that they are blind.
The revolution has started, not the violent type, but in the minds of the people. Many mantras are now as good as myths.
The most vital change is that the revolution already started within PAP. It is the last ditch before the two camps break apart into the open.
Subject: Comments by Dr. Tan Cheng Bock
Annual Reporting of Ministerial Salaries.
When I was in parliament (1980-2006) I was under the impression that Ministers did not get any Pension because all office holders were required to switch from pension to CPF in 1998. Imagine my surprise when I read in the newspaper (5 Jan 2012,ST) that in 2008,two years after l left parliament ,the Pension component was re- introduced and this resulted in a further increase in salaries for Ministers. This Pension component, which caused a lot of anger, is now removed. I am glad that this is being done. However, such a trend of changing policies mid-stream is not good. Singaporeans want more transparency. To be transparent, an annual report of ministerial salaries must be published.
A Win Win Formula for Ministerial Pay.
While using the bench mark of the median income of the top 1000 Singapore earners is better than 48 high earners in the past -the formula has not changed, only the numbers. Every year, the median income of the top 1000 earners will be used to calculate Minister’s pay. Some of those 1000 would have fallen off the list the next year. But, because the current formula only takes in the best 1000 in the high earners cohort each year, those fallen ones in the first year will not be considered in the second year. They will be replaced by better performing ones. Thus it is a win win formula. Consider this; if we were to use the SAME 1000 cohort over the term of office of the Ministers in our calculations each year, we may have a clearer and truer reflection of the fortunes of our top earners. It will be a case of comparing apples to apples. This will be reflected in our minister’s pay.
Revised Ministerial Pay in Singapore
To Serve or Not to Serve. A consistent theme in the revised Ministerial Pay review is Pay high or loose Talent. We can buy administrative talent but political talent I am not sure. They are two different skill sets. One is working for Salary, one is working for a Cause.
One has obedience and self, the other is about passion and public service. In schools, we were taught Service before Self. This is an important ethos of character building. However this over emphasis on using money as an incentive goes against all that.
We must bring back the public spirit of serving as our First Call and not be constantly swayed that Money in Politics will attract talent. The review committee was tasked to review the former committee’s rational for the level of salaries for the President and office holders.
The fact that the committee has not deviated from using the top private sector earners as a reference tells me the formula was only tweaked. Lets follow the debate in Parliament and I will share more comments.
By Dr. Tan Cheng Bock.
Post a Comment