Search the Community

Currently the formula is pegged to the top 8 professions. I think this introduces a few problems such as likely to cause a skew and biasness and hence increase the income gap. The more the top professions earn, the more the political appointees earns. It then naturally make sense to favour the top 8. This KPI is also not holistic. Too selective. How the lesser mortals are doing is not accounted for. Instead, I think it's better to change the formula peg to the median income of the ENTIRE population regardless of profession. This ensures that the PAs are only rewarded for improving the income of the OVERALL population. There should be an income ceiling of maybe 10-20x of the median income for the entire range of the PAs. If the median income is 3k/mth, then the top PA (President) should not earn more than 20x which is 60k (720k pa) and similar for the lower grades. That amount of income is considered decent. They would be able to afford most luxuries of life. Their children and grandchildren would be well taken care of. What's the point of giving them so much in excess? There's a limit to how much they could and should spend, especially as civil servants. Our President stayed in office for 2 terms. That 10yrs gave him unreachable (to lesser mortal) savings of 25m thereabouts. That's how many lifetime of earnings of the common citizen? Is there a need for so much? How to spend? Imagine MM and PM. No term cap. Moreover, they should be working more for the good of the people than for money. If they are paid more than they need to spend, then bribing them is pretty pointless isn't it? With the current system, I believe majority of the country's millionaires are civil servants. Is this correct? I personally think this is wrong. The wealthiest people in the country should not be civil servants.