Pritam Singh on ministerial salary - "I oppose the motion"

[Tigerwoods]

  On 1/20/2012 at 6:15 AM, Without_a_car said:

I am not worried if he did not received a bonus. I am more worried if he did.

If he did receive a bonus in-spite of failing his KPI, the remuneration policy is obviously flawed.

let's look at the KPI

GDP target met = check 16 mont hs bonus

performance bonus met = no good no 1 month bonus.

and yes he should receive his bonus... Less by 1 month.

[Kelloggs]

IMO, if the quality of current opposition in the parliament are to win the election and lead the country, forget it. Dont think we will be better off.

The 40% are so pissed with MIW that any standard is seen as gold. Then when they don't deliver, the same 40% will whine again.

The world is not enough. James Bond is so right

[Fuelsaver]

  On 1/19/2012 at 8:15 AM, Lamzh87 said:

If do fantastic job, dont mind even 10million a year.

Spot on.

 

If our lives can improve significantly, who would care about minister salary. They didn't do enuf to shut our mouths haha..

 

For me, all these r not the real issues; it's just dat too many needs of the ppl r not met.

 

For me, I'm hoping govt could achieve at least the few things for the ppl -

 

1. Let us retire worry-free; no need to worry about food, housing n healthcare at golden yrs.

 

2. make transport, childcare, education, healthcare, housing more affordable.

 

3. Collect less taxes; govt official to also pay tax.

 

4. Hire ppl based on merit n not connections.

[Donut]

  On 1/20/2012 at 2:07 AM, Nav14 said:

I have voted agaist the PAP for the past 4 elections but for this issue I support LKY's stand. I don't mind Ministers getting 3-4 million as long as they get the job done een if some mistakes along the way.

 

Senior Counsels are earning 2-5 million each year. 1-2 million is a very normal salary for top bankers. Even plastic surgeons can make 2-3 million a year. Surely Ministers who are reponsible for a nation of 5 million deserve even more than these people.

 

This is one issue the general public have got it wrong.

 

Yeah. But are they delivering in their jobs?

 

If u say they are, turn I feel sad for you

[Tuna_seng]

  On 1/20/2012 at 2:07 AM, Nav14 said:

I have voted agaist the PAP for the past 4 elections but for this issue I support LKY's stand. I don't mind Ministers getting 3-4 million as long as they get the job done een if some mistakes along the way.

 

Senior Counsels are earning 2-5 million each year. 1-2 million is a very normal salary for top bankers. Even plastic surgeons can make 2-3 million a year. Surely Ministers who are reponsible for a nation of 5 million deserve even more than these people.

 

This is one issue the general public have got it wrong.

 

Hi Nav14

 

You have been a very prolific investor in property the past 10 years.

 

You have gotten rich through the PAP's policies regarding property when it doubled and in some cases, tripled.

 

Voting against the PAP and paying lip service to the Opposition cause while getting rich off the back of the PAP's policies smacks of opportunitism and hypocrisy.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Tuna_seng

[Tonicwater]

Good speech, even if most of the House probably still live in another world.

[Felipe]

  On 1/18/2012 at 6:34 PM, Carben68 said:

There are MP and Ministers who have failed us. But I still want the best possible candidate in the hot seat for the highest possible chance of success. Get rid of the bad apples, sanitise and make palatable some of the issues. But don't ask for an average person in the job. He will only perform averagely. Pay is emotional because each and everyone of us has a salary and we compare. All work is honorable and we work for our salaries. I empathize with the coffee lady, the guy who moves the boxes in the factory, the admin asst and the rest of the "poorer" group. I was there before as well. But if my company tells me I should be paid less because it is more equitable to them, obviously its time for a new company

 

Don't throw the baby out with the water.

 

u have some sound arguments. however, u need to first establish public is the same as private work. at least in the eyes of 99% of the democratic world, SG being 1% of course, it is different, hence salaries should be different.

 

u can pay the best money to the best person to do the job. He or she will still make mistakes. Sportsmen earn multi millions and still make mistakes. if only it were that simple in public svc, then 99% of the democratic world would straightaway use our formula. i guess their countries must be doing terribly compared to ours.

[Felipe]

  On 1/21/2012 at 5:39 AM, Tonicwater said:

Good speech, even if most of the House probably still live in another world.

yep, wondered if 60% will get to read this in ST

[Relacklabrudder]

  On 1/20/2012 at 3:40 AM, Axela72 said:

So, if salary is considered as high as of last year, why aren't we are seeing the top earner from those industries come to join this career?

 

 

precisely, it is those who cannot make it to top earners in those industries that come to join this political career to get those top earning salaries.

[Relacklabrudder]

  Quote

Problem is many of them are not from top counsel , top bankers, top surgeon(viv bala is a surgeon but top?), their background is from army, stat baords, GLCs. Joining politics is a salary raise big time , not equivalent

 

Also banker, surgeon, or even counsel have risk on jobs. Kena sack by board or sued by patients very common but ministers?

 

  On 1/20/2012 at 3:20 AM, Joseph22 said:

actually why so many ppl think its easy to be top man in GLC and army??

those arent exactly easy job.

 

 

yes ,even if not easy, it is much lower than ministerial multi mil $ salary. so for most of these ministers it is actually a salary raise not equivalent pay

[Rongerald]

I was hoping they can debate other things, such as abolish GST for heathcare or medical services.

you guys dun get tired reading all these ministerial salaries?

[Relacklabrudder]

  On 1/20/2012 at 4:06 PM, Kelloggs said:

IMO, if the quality of current opposition in the parliament are to win the election and lead the country, forget it. Dont think we will be better off.

The 40% are so pissed with MIW that any standard is seen as gold. Then when they don't deliver, the same 40% will whine again.

The world is not enough. James Bond is so right

 

 

We have to try. remember it is the civil service that is doing all the donkey work not minister themselves. minister is much like a CEO, if ur team is solid, u look good.(unless u r the Steve Jobs kinda guy who goes deep technically )

 

let's say even if they perform equivalent of ruling party, Singapore already gained in terms of having political competition and i think also by the salary savings.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Relacklabrudder

[Good-Carbuyer]

  On 1/18/2012 at 4:36 PM, Relacklabrudder said:

MP Pritam Singh

[Kiadaw]

  On 1/21/2012 at 7:46 AM, Relacklabrudder said:

We have to try. remember it is the civil service that is doing all the donkey work not minister themselves. minister is much like a CEO, if ur team is solid, u look good.(unless u r the Steve Jobs kinda guy who goes deep technically )

 

let's say even if they perform equivalent of ruling party, Singapore already gained in terms of having political competition and i think also by the salary savings.

 

That is correct. How then can you explain they can keep changing person to lead the ministry, people with little experiences in the ministry they lead'.

 

Its because the work have been well established by the civil service.

 

But why didn't we hear often, from PM, to Ministers, if at all, when the nation is doing well, that it is due to the credit of the Civil service that keep the nation running, or even everyone of us that have make contributions as a nation.

 

Instead, they seems to suggest that they are the ones who solely contribute to the success, take almost all the credit.

 

We have a big income gap, as the "elites" have this mindset they are better than others, & take most of the windfall, & distribute very little to those hardworking people that help keep the country going.

 

If I am able to contribute my 2 cents, I would instead suggest, lowering the salary of Minister, & used this surplus (which would otherwise be part of our Minister salary) to distribute to the other employees, or as subsidy for transport concession or healthcare. Surely they will find it hard not to approve of this, unless they are a bunch of selfish people.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Kiadaw

[Fuelsaver]

  On 1/21/2012 at 9:18 AM, Kiadaw said:

That is correct. How then can you explain they can keep changing person to lead the ministry, people with little experiences in the ministry they lead'.

 

Its because the work have been well established by the civil service.

 

But why didn't we hear often, from PM, to Ministers, if at all, when the nation is doing well, that it is due to the credit of the Civil service that keep the nation running, or even everyone of us that have make contributions as a nation.

 

Instead, they seems to suggest that they are the ones who solely contribute to the success, take almost all the credit.

 

We have a big income gap, as the "elites" have this mindset they are better than others, & take most of the windfall, & distribute very little to those hardworking people that help keep the country going.

 

If I am able to contribute my 2 cents, I would instead suggest, lowering the salary of Minister, & used this surplus (which would otherwise be part of our Minister salary) to distribute to the other employees, or as subsidy for transport concession or healthcare. Surely they will find it hard not to approve of this, unless they are a bunch of selfish people.

It's lidat in most workplaces.

 

I'm trying to do opposite by always thanking my subordinates for their contribution in emails, as I believe a good general needs an abled army to win the battle.

 

[Joseph22]

  On 1/21/2012 at 9:18 AM, Kiadaw said:

That is correct. How then can you explain they can keep changing person to lead the ministry, people with little experiences in the ministry they lead'.

 

Its because the work have been well established by the civil service.

 

But why didn't we hear often, from PM, to Ministers, if at all, when the nation is doing well, that it is due to the credit of the Civil service that keep the nation running, or even everyone of us that have make contributions as a nation.

 

Instead, they seems to suggest that they are the ones who solely contribute to the success, take almost all the credit.

 

We have a big income gap, as the "elites" have this mindset they are better than others, & take most of the windfall, & distribute very little to those hardworking people that help keep the country going.

 

If I am able to contribute my 2 cents, I would instead suggest, lowering the salary of Minister, & used this surplus (which would otherwise be part of our Minister salary) to distribute to the other employees, or as subsidy for transport concession or healthcare. Surely they will find it hard not to approve of this, unless they are a bunch of selfish people.

 

Yes i agree.. most of our civil service are grossly underpaid.. especially the nurses.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Joseph22

[Relacklabrudder]

It's the Review Committee that doesn't get it Print Email

Friday, 13 January 2012

 

Singapore Democrats

 

The Committee for Ministerial Salary Review has issued a statement saying that Singaporeans have misunderstood its recommendations. In trying to clear up these "misunderstandings", it posted on its blog several explanations on why it made the proposals that it did.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that it is the Committee that doesn't quite get what Singaporeans are so angry about when it comes to paying the Ministers the kind of salaries they get - even after the proposed cuts. For example, in Question 1, the Committee asks:

 

 

1. Why link salaries to top earners?

 

This reflects the level of talent we hope to attract and the need to pay competitive salaries to minimise the opportunity cost for these people to come forward to serve. See paras 1 to 3, and paras 32 to 35.

 

SDP: What the people are unhappy about is that the despite the extraordinary amounts that our current ministers are paid, their performances have hardly been extraordinary. In fact, they have been quite dismal: Continued flooding, frequent train service disruptions, a sliding economy, over-dependence on foreign workers, depressed wages, increased cost of living, low productivity of workforce and so on.

 

If the high salaries have not been able to attract talent that have resolved such problems, what makes the Committee think that the continued payment of high salaries will?

 

 

2. Why have