1/22/2012
Starting with an agreeable year
I must say that we have an auspicious start for year 2012 with a more stable foundation for an agreeable year. The two political parties in Parliament have came to many common view points and policies. For a start, and the most important point to note, is that the PAP has commented and is happy that the WP has accepted the Salary Review Committee’s recommendation for ministerial salary. Though the WP had voted nay, the fact that they have agreed to the principle of a high and competitive pay for ministers, to attract top talents and the final sum of money which was very similar to the Salary Review Committee’s number is cause for celebration. The WP should play along and stop trying to say that it is the principle and methodology that are important and theirs were different.
The sum is something that PAP is comfortable with and with WP’s concurrence, there is no more fear that WP would in the future dare to cut it down further or they would have a hard time for changing their position. A warning shot has been fired (figuratively of course) that they must stick to the position and cannot change or it could be seen as hypocrisy or political opportunism. That is why PAP has never changed its policies and has been very consistent in defending all their policies. Or else they will be explaining and explaining every time there is a change of policies.
This style of not changing policies or not seen as having changed its policies is the trademark of PAP. And it may be the reasons why so many things were changed without an explanation for the PAP because there was no change in the first place.
It is implicit, without many words spoken, that both parties also agreed that the current pay was too much and needed to be cut. It is also explicit that some of the allowances were, well, needed to be thrown away as well. It is also implicit that pension is something that is not right to start with for politicians and definitely unbearable at that kind of numbers and for a life time.
It is politically unacceptable to pay ministers pension when they reached 55 years, which means taking two salaries at the same time, while the people’s CPF withdrawal date is becoming an elusive appointment date with the maker.
It is also not right to peg the minister’s salary to the top 48 income earners (something like that, I don’t have the resources to get me the exact formula), so pegging it to the top 1000 would be less elitist. Someone please do some work to see whether the final outcome of the change will lead to a different result ie the minister’s salary vis a vis the top income earners, would it still be in the same band of top income earners, plus or minus 100.
It is agreeable that pegging to the top 1000 is the same or better than pegging to MX9. The latter is bad because it is not the median or income of average Singaporeans. I think it is reported in the media that this is the income level of the 94 percentile of income earners. Wonder, just wondering, what percentile will be the median of the top 1000, or what percentile will be the minister’s salary if it has not been cut at all.
The PAP is happy, the WP is also happy, that the salary of ministers will henceforth be unlikely to go lower. There are also many ordinary people who are happy as well. One taxi driver told me that he aga aga the right amount will be about 50k or 60k and he was so happy that he guessed it right too. In the kopitiams every Ah Peh is also happy because they also computed the amount correctly with some winning big time in their bets using their abacus.
Confidentially, I too was happy as I dreamt of the number $55k also. And this is the same as the number the little bird at Serangoon Road picked.
It is a big coincidence that $55k is the number that everyone picked. For the superstitious or believers of supernatural forces, this must be a sign that the gods also agreed.
We now have many happy people in an agreeable mood to start the new year with a happy salary. I don’t think anyone needs to explain anything about this happy coincidence. Nothing really changed and it is after all a judgement call or an act of god. Let’s be happy and keep everyone in the happy mood instead of bitching around like a dog in heat. Otherwise many people will have many explanations to do when policies changed.
And a happy lunar new year to every one. Be happy. With the GDP out of the formula, hopefully this distraction will no longer be a preoccupation of those who are counting their bonuses and time can be well spent on improving the lot of the people. And there is no more guilt of being paid too much as it is done by an independent body with the approval of a compensation specialist agency and the Parliament.
The sum is something that PAP is comfortable with and with WP’s concurrence, there is no more fear that WP would in the future dare to cut it down further or they would have a hard time for changing their position. A warning shot has been fired (figuratively of course) that they must stick to the position and cannot change or it could be seen as hypocrisy or political opportunism. That is why PAP has never changed its policies and has been very consistent in defending all their policies. Or else they will be explaining and explaining every time there is a change of policies.
This style of not changing policies or not seen as having changed its policies is the trademark of PAP. And it may be the reasons why so many things were changed without an explanation for the PAP because there was no change in the first place.
It is implicit, without many words spoken, that both parties also agreed that the current pay was too much and needed to be cut. It is also explicit that some of the allowances were, well, needed to be thrown away as well. It is also implicit that pension is something that is not right to start with for politicians and definitely unbearable at that kind of numbers and for a life time.
It is politically unacceptable to pay ministers pension when they reached 55 years, which means taking two salaries at the same time, while the people’s CPF withdrawal date is becoming an elusive appointment date with the maker.
It is also not right to peg the minister’s salary to the top 48 income earners (something like that, I don’t have the resources to get me the exact formula), so pegging it to the top 1000 would be less elitist. Someone please do some work to see whether the final outcome of the change will lead to a different result ie the minister’s salary vis a vis the top income earners, would it still be in the same band of top income earners, plus or minus 100.
It is agreeable that pegging to the top 1000 is the same or better than pegging to MX9. The latter is bad because it is not the median or income of average Singaporeans. I think it is reported in the media that this is the income level of the 94 percentile of income earners. Wonder, just wondering, what percentile will be the median of the top 1000, or what percentile will be the minister’s salary if it has not been cut at all.
The PAP is happy, the WP is also happy, that the salary of ministers will henceforth be unlikely to go lower. There are also many ordinary people who are happy as well. One taxi driver told me that he aga aga the right amount will be about 50k or 60k and he was so happy that he guessed it right too. In the kopitiams every Ah Peh is also happy because they also computed the amount correctly with some winning big time in their bets using their abacus.
Confidentially, I too was happy as I dreamt of the number $55k also. And this is the same as the number the little bird at Serangoon Road picked.
It is a big coincidence that $55k is the number that everyone picked. For the superstitious or believers of supernatural forces, this must be a sign that the gods also agreed.
We now have many happy people in an agreeable mood to start the new year with a happy salary. I don’t think anyone needs to explain anything about this happy coincidence. Nothing really changed and it is after all a judgement call or an act of god. Let’s be happy and keep everyone in the happy mood instead of bitching around like a dog in heat. Otherwise many people will have many explanations to do when policies changed.
And a happy lunar new year to every one. Be happy. With the GDP out of the formula, hopefully this distraction will no longer be a preoccupation of those who are counting their bonuses and time can be well spent on improving the lot of the people. And there is no more guilt of being paid too much as it is done by an independent body with the approval of a compensation specialist agency and the Parliament.
1/21/2012
Lawrence Wong - Change also must explain
Last night it was in the news, repeated several times to make sure that everyone heard it, that Lawrence Wong, Chairman of PAP’s Publicity and Publication Subcommittee, wrote in the PAP’s website demanding that the WP explains its change in position on the pay of ministers. And there is a half a page article in the ST today to signify how important it is and how strong the PAP attached to the issue of explaining.
I quote, ‘This is what it means to be accountable and transparent, …Otherwise, how can voters be sure what to make of their future election promises and manifestos?...they never mentioned their past positions, much less explain their policy reversal…It is honourable and logical to change one’s position as circumstances change and new information becomes available. I hope that is why WP has changed its position. But when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the people.”
He added with a query, “if the change was due to a ‘principled approach’ or ‘political opportunism’.” This broadly sums up the importance of transparency and accountability of a responsible party like the PAP. Every major change and decision must be explained clearly to the people. This is a very honourable position to take. Tell the people the truth, the whole picture, do not hide anything, so that the people know exactly what the party stands for.
As the ruling party and govt, and the champion of transparency and clean wage and clean everything, perhaps the PAP should take the lead to show the smaller parties what transparency and accountability mean. Before the WP try to explain anything, which may not be up to the standard of the PAP’s KPI or sort of, and be asked to explain more, PAP may want to set a few examples like say, why the change to cut ministerial pay when the pay was actually raised recently, including those of the President? And there should be more disclosure of what the ministers were actually paid over the last 3 years, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The people are still in the dark despite all the claims of transparency and clean wage. Set the example by explaining and telling the people about them.
This revelation is more relevant as lack of understanding, like the MX9 issue, could lead to improper conclusion and understanding of the matter in discussion. In fact, all the numbers quoted of percentages of salary cuts were wrong if the actual total payout is not known. They were all talking about the basic salary. It is vital to know what was the take home pay and what is the new take home pay to know how much will be the cut. It could be 5% or 50% or more, no one really knows and everyone arguing like they knew.
This is quite disappointing really. Unless there is full transparency and disclosure, all the discount or salary cut percentages are misleading. At best they were only reflective of the basic pay. I found it disturbing that the both parties had based their proposals of salary cuts without knowing or mentioning what was the total payout to the ministers, at least last year.
The PAP may also want to explain why the three ministers were dropped from the Cabinet so that the people would know the reasons behind the droppings. It is about explaining and communications.
To quote Lawrence Wong and to satisfy his hunger on ‘they never mentioned their past positions, much less than policy reversal’, and also his morally correct stand, ‘when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the public’ it would be good for the PAP to set the standard of explaining and public disclosure. This will definitely raise the standard of good govt and something that we can all be proud of and expected of future govt.
Let’s do it, show the way, and the smaller political parties can learn from it. Follow the leader with the highest standard of transparency and accountability. The smaller parties must know what should be explained and how much to tell as they did not know how high the PAP has set its standard on these matters. It is like the KPIs which no know really knows what they were and one can set KPIs for self and for others without telling or transparency.
I am impressed by Lawrence Wong’s call and support it and hope all parties will abide by this clean call for more transparency and accountability. “It is not always easy or popular to take an honest and principled approach. But Singaporeans expect no less, both from the ruling party and the opposition.’
It is all about honesty versus hypocrisy. I am glad that the PAP can stand on high pedestal and talked about principled approach. That is what the people expect of an honourable political party that frown upon political opportunism.
I quote, ‘This is what it means to be accountable and transparent, …Otherwise, how can voters be sure what to make of their future election promises and manifestos?...they never mentioned their past positions, much less explain their policy reversal…It is honourable and logical to change one’s position as circumstances change and new information becomes available. I hope that is why WP has changed its position. But when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the people.”
He added with a query, “if the change was due to a ‘principled approach’ or ‘political opportunism’.” This broadly sums up the importance of transparency and accountability of a responsible party like the PAP. Every major change and decision must be explained clearly to the people. This is a very honourable position to take. Tell the people the truth, the whole picture, do not hide anything, so that the people know exactly what the party stands for.
As the ruling party and govt, and the champion of transparency and clean wage and clean everything, perhaps the PAP should take the lead to show the smaller parties what transparency and accountability mean. Before the WP try to explain anything, which may not be up to the standard of the PAP’s KPI or sort of, and be asked to explain more, PAP may want to set a few examples like say, why the change to cut ministerial pay when the pay was actually raised recently, including those of the President? And there should be more disclosure of what the ministers were actually paid over the last 3 years, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The people are still in the dark despite all the claims of transparency and clean wage. Set the example by explaining and telling the people about them.
This revelation is more relevant as lack of understanding, like the MX9 issue, could lead to improper conclusion and understanding of the matter in discussion. In fact, all the numbers quoted of percentages of salary cuts were wrong if the actual total payout is not known. They were all talking about the basic salary. It is vital to know what was the take home pay and what is the new take home pay to know how much will be the cut. It could be 5% or 50% or more, no one really knows and everyone arguing like they knew.
This is quite disappointing really. Unless there is full transparency and disclosure, all the discount or salary cut percentages are misleading. At best they were only reflective of the basic pay. I found it disturbing that the both parties had based their proposals of salary cuts without knowing or mentioning what was the total payout to the ministers, at least last year.
The PAP may also want to explain why the three ministers were dropped from the Cabinet so that the people would know the reasons behind the droppings. It is about explaining and communications.
To quote Lawrence Wong and to satisfy his hunger on ‘they never mentioned their past positions, much less than policy reversal’, and also his morally correct stand, ‘when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the public’ it would be good for the PAP to set the standard of explaining and public disclosure. This will definitely raise the standard of good govt and something that we can all be proud of and expected of future govt.
Let’s do it, show the way, and the smaller political parties can learn from it. Follow the leader with the highest standard of transparency and accountability. The smaller parties must know what should be explained and how much to tell as they did not know how high the PAP has set its standard on these matters. It is like the KPIs which no know really knows what they were and one can set KPIs for self and for others without telling or transparency.
I am impressed by Lawrence Wong’s call and support it and hope all parties will abide by this clean call for more transparency and accountability. “It is not always easy or popular to take an honest and principled approach. But Singaporeans expect no less, both from the ruling party and the opposition.’
It is all about honesty versus hypocrisy. I am glad that the PAP can stand on high pedestal and talked about principled approach. That is what the people expect of an honourable political party that frown upon political opportunism.
1/20/2012
Poor thing - Tan Chuan Jin
"Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin, choking over his words said: “I’m pained by the knowledge that I’ll miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever… In time I will look back and there will be gaps. But that’s life. I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivialises all of us who do cherish these.” Copied from CNA video/FeedmetotheFish commentary.
I am starting to feel very sorry for all these good men and women making their terrible sacrifices for the country and people. I am sad to hear this. We must not allowed such a painful state of affair to go on and do nothing about it. The Americans got the best answer to this and we should see if we can borrow their ideas so that our leaders do not have to make this kind of big sacrifices.
The Americans put Obama and his families in the White House, although in so doing they paid him a little lesser, but it is a good thing. Now Obama cannot claim that he is making a big sacrifice on his family life. He could work from his bedroom or his family could be playing next to his office. Now that is a humane way of looking after the welfare of their leaders.
We should send a petition to the govt to make such an arrangement so that our ministers need not have to suffer so much. This is all about inclusiveness, about taking care of our people. And ministers are people too. Poor thing.
I am starting to feel very sorry for all these good men and women making their terrible sacrifices for the country and people. I am sad to hear this. We must not allowed such a painful state of affair to go on and do nothing about it. The Americans got the best answer to this and we should see if we can borrow their ideas so that our leaders do not have to make this kind of big sacrifices.
The Americans put Obama and his families in the White House, although in so doing they paid him a little lesser, but it is a good thing. Now Obama cannot claim that he is making a big sacrifice on his family life. He could work from his bedroom or his family could be playing next to his office. Now that is a humane way of looking after the welfare of their leaders.
We should send a petition to the govt to make such an arrangement so that our ministers need not have to suffer so much. This is all about inclusiveness, about taking care of our people. And ministers are people too. Poor thing.
What did Parliament approve?
The approval of the Salary Recommendation by the Review Committee also means that all the assumptions and logics are accepted as valid. The major points are, need to pay high salary to attract talent, right to peg ministerial salary to top 1000 income earners, right to pay allowances and variable bonuses based on the formula submitted.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)