Highest paid politicians - the numbers are wrong!

Yes, the numbers quoted for the world's highest top 30 politicians are wrong, way off the mark. Too conservative. What were quoted in the article were only the basic 12 months' salary of the politicians. There is another element that forms part of the package. Oh actually there were two elements, another bonus payment that can go as high as 12 months of the monthly salary. Some have quoted a figure of 16 months. And there is also pension. To quote Hsien Loong during his answer to Steve Chia, a NCMP, this was what he said. 'Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member's implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.' It is an entire package, ....it all adds up to a finite amount. So, when we said that a minister or Prime Minister is getting say $3m, he could possibly get $6m, plus or minus a little depending on his bonuses. Then on top of that, if he has reached 55 years of age and has served 8 years as a minister, he is entitled to another 2/3 of his basic salary. There is a formula and definition of the basic salary in the Parliamentary Pensions Act. So if a Prime Minister is getting $3.9m, he could be getting another $3.9m in bonuses and another 2/3 of an X salary. This could easily be another $2m. That will come to around $9.8m. This $9.8m is the entire package, excluding other perks. Thus, all the figures quoted are way off their marks. They should be multiplied by 2 or 2.67 times. Would these numbers drive the political leaders of the world, especially the rich western nations, insane? They must be kicking themselves for being so underpaid.

This blog is quoted in the London Times!

Thank you Green Peas. Your article is not only quoted in the London Times online and in many other blogs and forums around the world, it also enlightens the world on how well we are governed as a country. http://www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/ is now famous man! I have noticed that the readership these few days have shot up furiously. Here is the link: http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/04/the-10-highest-paid-politicians-in-the-world.html#more

Citizens versus Netizens

Joel Gn from Mediacorp wrote an article on the merits of netizen views and how representatives they were in Today. His conclusion can be summarised into the following. 1. There is no face to face discussion and many netizens hide behind the veil of anonymity, especially with regard to policy matters. Thus their views were not credible. Ha, I choose to differ. It is exactly because of the culture of fear here that anonymous views are more real and representative of the truth. Many who spoke in public actually would not disclosed their true feeling and views for obvious reasons. 2. The views expressed in cyberspace are views of a few individuals. So, the views expressed in the old media are not the views of individuals? Even many of the crap surveys and pushed out as the people's views were views of individuals. Even national policies were views of individuals and not the views of the people. Agree? Remember, it is for your own good. Or shall we concede that the views expressed by the professional reporters and journalists were the views of the people, not their individual views? Joel Gn forgot that in cyberspace it is 'the message and not the platform' or the people articulating it that is important. Anyone, no matter how big his title is, if he talks nonsense in cyberspace, he will be declared a clown immediately by netizens. On the other hand, an unassuming person with no title or status but could articulate a sensible view, the view will be respected. It is the message, not who you are. And that is exactly what Joel Gn said. That is the strength of cyberspace. You can't fool anyone by virtue of your position of title. And currently, cyberspace provides the anonymity for truthful opinions and gut reactions to be aired. You can't do it in the old media. They will either be censored, or one will get himself into trouble for airing the truth.

Which blog or forum is part of the PAP stable?

The PAP has been preparing itself to play a bigger role in cyberspace. Having recognised that this is an area it cannot neglect and cannot close down, the only other option is to engage cyberspace fully as an active participant. It mentioned that it has its blogs and forums in place and it can be expected to launch its entry into cyberspace with a big bang. Now which are the blogs and forums that are actually linked with the PAP? So far we have only heard of the famous P65 and the YPAP forum. Which other ones will stand up and declare that it is also a PAP blog/forum? It will be interesting to see the real faces when the curtains are drawn. But I bet not every blog/forum will reveal its true affiliation. So there will still be a lot of guess work to try to identify who is the real McCoy.

The Art of comparing pay

Just a few weeks back, Liew Mun Leong was in cloud nine. He was the highest paid CEO in the island. So far no one is claiming to be paid more more $21m. He is also the highest pay employee in the island, private, public, civil servants, politicians, charity organisations, religious organisations all considered. Today he is probably feeling not so high when ST compares him with the CEOs of America. There they were being paid in hundreds of millions and in US$. What Liew Mun Leong got was peanut, yes, peanuts. And based on the ST articles, Liew Mun Leong is very deserving. The American companies are paying their CEOs more than Liew Mun Leong even when their companies were losing money. It is indeed a great lesson in how to compare pay and how to make one looks good or looks not too great. Our politicians sure don't look too good when compare to Liew Mun Leong. But when apples are compared to apples, our politician's salary are beyond comparison. I hope they now believe that they should not be asking for more increases until at least Barack Obama catches up. Maybe the old media should do an investigative report on all the incomes of the world's top politicians, including all the corrupt money they are getting. I am wondering how much corrupt money is Obama and Brown or Kevin Rudd getting, or Sarkozy? Then our politicians salary will be peanuts once again. And they can then justify for another round of increases. And the people will say, ya, they are underpaid.