How much is the right amount to pay our ministers?

This question keeps popping up in every discussion after the discovery of how much the ministers are getting under the current formula. And when this question was asked, many would want to say $200k or $300k or $500k. But all were too shy to say it. They know that these numbers would not be accepted by people used to earning millions and have millions as their base reference point. The best example is what Gerard Ee quoted, that his peers would tell him not to kacho them for anything less than a million.
They would only be comfortable with millions and millions, nothing less.

And it is only right that these millionaires should not be coerced to suffer by going into politics to earn less when the heart is not there. Or else when they come in they would quietly devise all kinds of schemes and formulas to ensure that they get back what they want and more for the big sacrifice to go into politics. Money minded people will only think money even if they tell you money is not important or not a consideration.

A cat will say it would not want to eat mice. But eating rats is ok. Rodents, big ones, better still. Just don’t give it any mouse. They could even cut out the big rats or rodents into many pieces and tell you they are eating only a leg or a piece of steak. No mice. So the myth will go on, cats would no longer eat mice.

As to the question of how much, no amount is right and no amount is wrong. It is only right or wrong to the recipients. And it is also right or wrong to the public from their own perspective and values.

I would want to suggest a generous amount for our ministers. Actually it is a very generous amount in the eyes of reasonable people. Though it is not right to compare a chiku with a durian, if we want to be generous, we should close an eye and pretend that the chiku is as big as the durian and peg it to the durian’s worth. No one can say that this is not generous.
But the people must be brave enough to tell the chiku that it is a fruit and should not try to pick and choose what it wants to compare with. It is time to gently remind the chiku that it is after all a chiku.

Ok, now that we have a little framework in place and in a generous mood, I would suggest that we peg our PM’s pay with the richest and biggest economy in the world. We peg our PM’s salary to the President of the USA. Generous or not? If the President of the USA can live comfortably with his salary in a country where the cost of living is definitely not lower than ours, there is no reason that the same salary cannot provide our PM with a comfortable lifestyle and with dignity. At least he would have the same level of dignity as the President of USA which no one else can come near to. That should be very generous in my view. Anything more than this would be seen as greedy, outrageous and insane. Period.

A chiku is a chiku is a chiku.

The fallacy of getting what you paid for

Arising from the proposed ministerial salary cut, there is this comment by Eugene Tan of SMU, that ‘Often, as in the private sector, you get what you paid for.’ This linkage of monetary value to the intrinsic value that comes with a person’s service, work, or the quality of a product can be misleading.

Not everyone who makes a lot of money is a super talent. Many gamblers make more money than the smartest academics. Making money is a different skill set and depends on many variables. Some don’t need any talent to be making plenty of money or living a life of plenty.

The other linkage that is often misleading is the interchangeability of skills. A top surgeon will naturally be a good national leader. Or a top soldier will automatically be a good ministers. You can stretch this to every profession and the answer is obvious. The different skills and talents required in different profession can be totally irrelevant to the job of a politician. It has been proven that a too clever politician can be a liability instead.

The other disadvantage of attracting talents by virtue of their success in their chosen field to go to politics can be the loss of both professions when the former profession lost an excellent professional who ended up as a mediocre politician. It is true, a fact.

There is no direct correlation between a high income earner and his ability to become a good political leader or a good national leader. Bring in a top notch gambler or thief and he would probably apply his gambling skills to run the country or steal from the country.

You don’t always get what you paid for. This is a fallacy that does not need any proving. Very often than not, a person who is motivated by making more money and can only be attracted by money, is a bad choice to lead the country. And using money to lure people into politics is already a big mistake.

Singapore Ministers not the highest paid in the World

I read this report from a Elena Torrijos in Yahoo News, Singapore. This is her first 2 paragraphs.

Updated (6.24pm)
Singapore ministers, among the highest-paid in the world, should have their salaries cut by 37 per cent to S$1.1 million and their pension benefits stripped, the panel to review political pay said in a press release to the public on Wednesday.

Singapore ministers are only among the highest paid in the world, not the highest. This must be a consoling news from Yahoo.

Is this what the reporter is saying? Or at least this is the impression I am getting. Maybe she knows something that I don't.

What is the maximum payout possible?

The Today paper has a chart listing the amount that could be paid out to a political appointment holder under the current framework.

1. 12 mths basic salary
2. 1 mth NPAA
3. 1 mth Special Allowance
4. 2 mths Public Leadership Allowance

The above are fixed or guaranteed. Thus an appointee will get 16 mths of his basic salary. Below are the variables.

5. 0-1.5 mths Annual Variable Component
6. 0-14 mths Performance Bonus
7. 0-8 mths GDP Bonus

Put the two parts together and looking at the maximum it means that a political appointment holder could get a maximum of 16 mths + 23.5 mths in total annual salary, or 39.5 months.

It would be unlikely that many of them would be getting this full sum, but there should be a few of the super talented ones getting them, 39.5 mths or 3.29 times of annual salary. So if a minister is getting $2m, his annual income could be $6.58m. And if the PM is $3 his annual income could be $9.87m! This is theoretical of course.

Last year was a good year with GDP at a record high, like 15%. How to get such a phenomenal growth rate is short of miraculous indeed. It must be raining gold from heaven. Did any of the good performers get the max, or how many get near to the 39.5 mths, or 36 mths not to be too ambitious?

Own target, own time, fire!

The Americans are superb in mobilizing mass thinking to serve their own interest. They raised a few targets, gave them some names that people loved to hate, and viola, the masses of the world will be attacking the targets and forget about what is happening around them. The silly Asians are hating the Iranians, the Iraqis, the North Koreans happily and obsessively.

In the army, many males Sinkies will be familiar with the command, ‘At your own target, at your own time, fire!’ And the soldiers will be furiously firing at the raised targets in front of them, oblivious of what is happening around them.

What have all these got to do with the current big hooha on ministerial salary review? A big set of numbers are given to the people and all are happily digesting them and firing at them like good soldiers. Does anyone bother to step back and check if the numbers given are accurate or the numbers that they should really be looking at? As an example, the annual salary of a minister is $2,368,500. Is this what the minister really gets as his annual income? Are the bonuses included, and if not, do they want to know what is the total annual income? In other words, what is the real total annual income of a minister, excluding the minor perks? Are there other incomes that need to be included? Does a minister still collect his MP allowance? How many other appointments is he holding and being paid as well?

Are the numbers giving a full and complete picture of the income of a politician/MP/Minister? While everyone is happily firing, do they want to take a step back and examine if they are getting the full picture and firing at the target they should be firing at?