Ministerial Salary Review
-
Funz:
Whoa! That means... ok... I can't say it. But it is still better than this...Chenonceau:
You expect them to be bottom earners?
Gosh, lack of sleep is making me misread earners as cleaners.
http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2011/10/seen-on-facebook-not-quite-sure-what-kind-of-cleaning-service-this-is.html -
3Boys:
I fundamentally disagree with this.Edureach:
Good that our PM has taken this step to reconnect with the people. Also like the fact that our President had accepted the commitee's recommendations in such a quick manner.
Personally, all politicians holding office are statesmen. Financial and personal sacrifices are to be expected. In return, they are accorded with respect and the esteem the offices hold which financial rewards in itself cannot satisfy. Without their leadership and sacrifices, our nation cannot prosper and move together regardless of one's social standing as one people. Nation building must be seen to start from the very top. Previous PAP leaders were seen to be frugal and had great support from the people. This is a major step taken by this current leadership to correct a policy error and is one i am happy about.
Occupations like social services, uniform groups, government medical staff and education service also require some form of sacrifices. If all these professionals would to demand higher pay, they should take the risk to venture into private sector. Thus comparing the very top pay the top ceos draw in the glcs/top public listed cos is not instructive at all. Major sacrifices must be seen from our leaders which is why it is not just a career but a calling! A highly competent professional with great achievements in his career may not necessarily make the cut for political office in this instance if he is too concern about remuneration. Careers as President, PM and his ministers are all extraordinary jobs meant for extraordinary people. There is glory in this area and no amount of material benefits can equate with it.
All in all, i am happy with the progress made so far by this current administration.
The implication is that paying low wages somehow ensures that only the right candidates come forth to serve.
I think across the world, if you look at all political systems, the evidence for this is scant.
The only reason I support the reduction in wages for our leaders is that is provides them with the moral authority needed to lead, not because I think that we are going to get any better government or governance. Quite the contrary, I think.
I share your view but sadly there are some people who think ministers' pay should be very much lower still. How low can we go? 10K per month? Who honestly think George Yeo and Raymond Lim are now earning less than they used to do previously? Even their current pay is 50% lower I am sure they would think the trade off -more privacy, less public scrutiny, etc - is worthwhile.
My point is we cannot attract the right person to serve just by saying 'come on, you are the one, it's a noble call and pay should not really matter'. It just wont work. -
HVR:
Therein lies the politics of envy and hypocrisy. It is the unfortunate reality, but this reduction in pay will draw the bulk of the sting of criticism, and hopefully put the government back on the front foot and back to governing, instead of fighting a rearguard action. Quite masterful politicking from the PM, if I may say so. But it comes from the heart, I believe, he was already giving away a chunk of his salary to charity anyway.
I share your view but sadly there are some people who think ministers' pay should be very much lower still. How low can we go? 10K per month? Who honestly think George Yeo and Raymond Lim are now earning less than they used to do previously? Even their current pay is 50% lower I am sure they would think the trade off -more privacy, less public scrutiny, etc - is worthwhile.
My point is we cannot attract the right person to serve just by saying 'come on, you are the one, it's a noble call and pay should not really matter'. It just wont work. -
Uniquely Singapore !
-
3Boys:
I believe the above argument premised on the fact that all other selection criteria for the government leaders remained the same and assumed acceptable and the only one that needed twigging was the high wages.
I fundamentally disagree with this.Edureach:
Good that our PM has taken this step to reconnect with the people. Also like the fact that our President had accepted the commitee's recommendations in such a quick manner.
Personally, all politicians holding office are statesmen. Financial and personal sacrifices are to be expected. In return, they are accorded with respect and the esteem the offices hold which financial rewards in itself cannot satisfy. Without their leadership and sacrifices, our nation cannot prosper and move together regardless of one's social standing as one people. Nation building must be seen to start from the very top. Previous PAP leaders were seen to be frugal and had great support from the people. This is a major step taken by this current leadership to correct a policy error and is one i am happy about.
Occupations like social services, uniform groups, government medical staff and education service also require some form of sacrifices. If all these professionals would to demand higher pay, they should take the risk to venture into private sector. Thus comparing the very top pay the top ceos draw in the glcs/top public listed cos is not instructive at all. Major sacrifices must be seen from our leaders which is why it is not just a career but a calling! A highly competent professional with great achievements in his career may not necessarily make the cut for political office in this instance if he is too concern about remuneration. Careers as President, PM and his ministers are all extraordinary jobs meant for extraordinary people. There is glory in this area and no amount of material benefits can equate with it.
All in all, i am happy with the progress made so far by this current administration.
The implication is that paying low wages somehow ensures that only the right candidates come forth to serve.
I think across the world, if you look at all political systems, the evidence for this is scant.
The only reason I support the reduction in wages for our leaders is that is provides them with the moral authority needed to lead, not because I think that we are going to get any better government or governance. Quite the contrary, I think.
Incidentally after the review for reduction, the wages are not considered low by global standards, I would say more equitable, so this statement is not exactly accurate as well:
The implication is that paying low wages somehow ensures that only the right candidates come forth to serve. (should be \"lower\"?)
And \"right\" means different things to different people.
I read \"right\" for you means better in capability and you are not wrong if wages is the only criteria to attract such capable people. The common saying is 'pay peanuts get monkeys'.
\"right \" for most ppl now means \"right mindset\" to serve and that assumes the person selected should already be capable(filtered by the leadership criteria) and only lacking in mindset as it may be clouded by the high wages previously. Assuming well paid people will perform at their best is also a wrong assumption. We have already seen a few cases where performance is not at the best too.
So my take is if we find very capable people and they reject the role because the wages have been revised downwards, then better not have them on board because running a country is not a money-making job, it requires some special spirit. If we find a less capable one but with the special spirit booster to drive him/her to do things in the best interest of the country, we are still better off. And we are talking about equitable wages, not low wages here. Of course there are still netizens who are quipping about the wages not low enough, I will ignore this group for now. -
ksi, :salute:
TQ, I share the same thoughts - you manage to put them down in words clearly and concisely :celebrate:
Nobody is asking the ministers to go lower to 10k p.m. After the proposed cuts, our leaders are still the most well-paid in the world.
The point was it was considered OBSCENELY too high for public service office holders, especially when many Singaporeans are earning 2k-3k since the 90s. ( many, not all - just a note )
If GY or RL or any politician feel that the trade-off ( as indicated ) is worthwhile, then you know what ? With that kind of mindset, they are probably not the best candidates for THESE SORT of positions in the government.
And again, nobody is being asked to do for purely noble cause and low pay. The remuneration must be attractive and accorded to the duties , hence this Ministerial Review Committee's proposal.
However, I agree with 3Boys on the sting being muted and the swiftness of acceptance by the government is a respectable and committed move that can only draw admirations and respect.
but your comment of instead of fighting a rearguard action ? :scratchhead:
Do you mean like 'having to spend time to fix the opposition' ? :evil:
Please bear in mind, I think the previous pay structure was worked out by the government and has been in force for quite some time. Does Merkl or Obama set his/her and his adminstration's own salaries ? Do they decide and it goes through a parliament discussion comprising of 95% of their own team members ? This Committee Review was a good move, and was a few years late.
However, let's not take away anything from the excellent job the early batch of government has done for all of us. But in the hope to continue, perhaps the search for new leaders has shifted the focus and priorities of the candidates in monetary terms a bit too excessively. Not all high flyers can govern a country where the responsibilities are much more different - welfare, moral, compassion of citizens involved as opposed to bottomline and growth only.
Let's move on. More good years
3Boys:
Therein lies the politics of envy and hypocrisy. It is the unfortunate reality, but this reduction in pay will draw the bulk of the sting of criticism, and hopefully put the government back on the front foot and back to governing, instead of fighting a rearguard action. Quite masterful politicking from the PM, if I may say so. But it comes from the heart, I believe, he was already giving away a chunk of his salary to charity anyway.HVR:
I share your view but sadly there are some people who think ministers' pay should be very much lower still. How low can we go? 10K per month? Who honestly think George Yeo and Raymond Lim are now earning less than they used to do previously? Even their current pay is 50% lower I am sure they would think the trade off -more privacy, less public scrutiny, etc - is worthwhile.
My point is we cannot attract the right person to serve just by saying 'come on, you are the one, it's a noble call and pay should not really matter'. It just wont work.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7ZJz0dxBJ4][/youtube][/quote] -
I fully support the pay cut. I think that some of our political leaders have become very pampered. :skeptical: I read the article on Grace Fu's Facebook comments and was quite surprised. In all his years as PM, SM and MM, I don't recall Lee Kuan Yew ever lamenting that he had not enough time to spare for his family. Neither did he complain that his family might have to experience a \"drastic change in their standard of living\" with his career switch from high-flying lawyer to PM of a fledgling country.
As expected, Grace Fu later said that she was \"misunderstood\".
If maintaining her family's luxurious standard of living matters more to her than Singaporeans, it honestly wouldn't be so bad for us if she goes back to PSA. Sorry to be blunt. Political leaders ought to be made of sterner stuff. -
:hi5: strparent, we all know for a fact that the starting baseline was way too obscene(that is a right word! thanks!)...now it just becomes more reasonable and if we continue to enjoy our stay here, any steps taken by them in conjunction with our constructive feedback, micro or macro, shows that we are making commendable progress in partnership with our leaders to make this place more home.
-
ksi:
:hi5: strparent, we all know for a fact that the starting baseline was way too obscene(that is a right word! thanks!)...now it just becomes more reasonable and if we continue to enjoy our stay here, any steps taken by them in conjunction with our constructive feedback, micro or macro, shows that we are making commendable progress in partnership with our leaders to make this place more home.
and we don't need obscene pay to give constructive feedback, Gerald Ee and his team does not need obscene pay make a workable salary structure -
Ksi, exactly the words of my sediments. :salute:
Today MPs paid too high and too pampered and hence cannot \"feel\" for the commoners. When comments were being brough up for months and years all turned to deaf ears and worse remarkly labelled as \"singaporean only knows how to complain\" or worse \"freak accident only happens once in a blue moon\". This kind of comments are unwarranted. Instead of investigating it, they are all too quick to brush it off.
If no quick action are enforced, i am not surprised we will be like Thailand recent flooding incident. http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_750775.html
So i am all for it.......those who can't perform, out you go.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login