https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singaporea...062435406.html
Many Singaporeans feel CDC mayor salaries are ‘outrageous’: Pritam Singh
Nicholas Yong
Nicholas Yong·Assistant News Editor
24 February 2021·3-min read
SINGAPORE — Many Singaporeans are of the view that the salaries of Community Development Council (CDC) mayors are “outrageous”, mainly because they are not perceived to commensurate with the mayor’s roles and functions today, said Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh on Wednesday (24 February).
“Other Singaporeans are of the view that the CDCs’ functions can be carried out by other existing entities, or by ministries and statutory boards, including other organisations under the People’s Association, particularly since the social footprint of each CDC is uneven, and can differ greatly compared to another,” claimed Singh.
“Yet others simply don’t know what the CDCs do.”
There are currently five district mayors - Low Yen Ling (South West), Denise Phua (Central), Fahmi Aliman (South East), Alex Yam (North West) and Desmond Choo (North East).
According to the 2012 White Paper on government salaries, mayors are paid an annual salary of $660,000. This is in addition to their annual MP allowance of $192,500.
Speaking during the parliamentary debate on Budget 2021, the Workers’ Party chief noted that $20 million was allocated to the CDCs in the Unity Budget last year, and this increased to $75 million a month later in the Resilience Budget. “This injection is equal to all the reserves of the CDCs put together, according to the CDCs’ FY 2018 annual report.”
The Aljunied Member of Parliament called for a “serious review” of the necessity of having full-time CDC mayors, suggesting that bodies such as the Citizens Consultative Committees (CCC) are more closely connected to the ground. He noted, for example, that representatives of market and merchants association are commonly represented on the CCCs, and there is one CCC for each ward or constituency.
It would follow, said Singh, that the CDCs’ role in the CDC voucher scheme is potentially “superfluous”. The 43-year-old added, “So it would appear to me as if the government is trying to find some way to make the CDCs relevant, in view of their relative absence in the public mindshare.”
CDC voucher scheme
Last Tuesday, the government announced a $900 million Household Support package for families in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Under the package, about 1.3 million households will be given $100 CDC vouchers, with an additional $150 million grant to the CDC for this. Recipients can use the vouchers at heartland shops and hawker centres.
Singh asked the government to clarify if the CDC vouchers can also be used at supermarket chains such as Giant, Sheng Siong and NTUC FairPrice. He suggested that the current scheme be focused solely on heartland shops and hawkers, such as local provision shops, Chinese sinsehs and fruit sellers
“There’s a risk that if this is not done, the bulk of the vouchers would be spent at supermarkets like NTUC, Fairprice and bypass the heartland shops. If the major supermarket chains are involved, the scheme could effectively mirror a cash top up.”
He also asked how much of the $150 million has been allocated for the CDC voucher scheme per se, and how much constitutes the amount allocated for the administration of the program.
Stay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore’s Telegram channel at
Related stories:
80% of Singaporeans think Budget 2021 will boost economy: survey
Budget 2021: Singapore expects overall budget deficit of $11 billion for FY2021
Singapore Budget 2021: More winners than losers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
https://sg.yahoo.com/news/comment-he...035901193.html
COMMENT: Heng Swee Keat - Chosen as Singapore PM, chose to quit
Nicholas Yong
Nicholas Yong·Assistant News Editor
Fri, 9 April 2021, 11:59 am
SINGAPORE — The would-be king is dead. Long live the king - whoever he or she might be.
Heng Swee Keat, once proclaimed by the late Lee Kuan Yew as his most capable aide ever, has now joined the ranks of political could-have-beens like Anwar Ibrahim and Hillary Clinton, leaving Singaporeans to wonder what sort of Prime Minister he might have made. All in, he lasted around two and a half years as the heir apparent to PM Lee Hsien Loong.
In a televised Istana press conference on Thursday (8 April) that was open only to Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Mediacorp outlets, as well as the social news site Mothership, the Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister abdicated as the chosen one almost nine months after the General Election, amid a plethora of well-rehearsed talking points.
But while PM Lee and Heng’s fourth-generation colleagues were all singing from the same hymn sheet, the end result was still puzzlingly, and maddeningly, discordant.
The 59-year-old first cited his age - he had belatedly realised that by the time the next General Election comes around, Heng will be in his mid-60s, and the runway for leadership succession will be too short. “We need someone who is younger with a longer runway, to not think in just one or two election terms, but think about the long term future of Singapore,” he said, exhibiting the body language of a man ill at ease in the glare of the media spotlight.
Then there was the startling admission that he had not seen himself as up to the job from day one. Asked when he had started thinking about stepping aside, Heng, who will retain his post as Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies, replied, “I started thinking about it when I was appointed. I do not want to take on any job which I cannot deliver…And therefore, I’ve been thinking about it as to whether am I the right person?”
To further complicate matters, despite singing his praises amid a show of unity, Heng’s 4G colleagues have yet to choose a new successor and said in a joint statement that his decision was an “unexpected turn of events”. Even more confusingly, Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean will be acting PM whenever PM Lee is on leave, despite Heng remaining as DPM for now.
The average Singaporean could be forgiven for thinking: what is going on? For there is no other way to call it but for what it is: a leadership crisis.
Something does not add up
Yahoo News Singapore contributor PN Balji, a former editor of The New Paper and Today, covered two prime ministerial successions in his career: from the late Lee to Goh Chok Tong to the current incumbent. Now, he said, Singapore’s well-choreographed leadership succession has gone “topsy turvy”, even though Lee, 69, had already pledged to stay on till the end of the pandemic.
“The Singapore system is such that everything is well planned. Now Mr Heng steps aside and we don’t know who is going to take over. He is not going to be Finance Minister, but he’s still going to be DPM for a while. It’s all very intriguing and unsettling for Singapore,” Balji said.
Balji was also unconvinced by the 4G leaders citing the pandemic as a reason for the disruption in leadership succession. “COVID-19 has been here for a year. Is it worse than what it was a year ago? And PM Lee has already said he will not hand over until COVID-19 is over. So what is the pressure on Heng Swee Keat?”
All this does not bode well for the People’s Action Party, in the wake of last year’s election that saw the opposition making historic gains and the PAP’s vote share falling by almost nine percentage points. Since then, the ruling party has stumbled from one setback to another, whether it be the TraceTogether debacle or its apparent U-turn on the contentious tudung issue.
Come the next election, what would the PAP say if the Workers’ Party, which ran Heng to the wire in his East Coast ward, or any other opposition party were to contest the GRC and tell residents there: you were duped into voting for a man who was supposed to be PM, are you going to be duped yet again?
First among equals?
With the benefit of 20/20 vision - no pun intended - Heng’s unease in his role had been apparent for some time. One of the clearest signs that he might not be primus inter pares was his fumbling performance in a November 2019 parliamentary session.
Having proposed a motion that called on WP Members of Parliament Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim to recuse themselves from financial matters relating to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), he was meant to carry the ball. This reporter wrote at the time, “Instead, just minutes into the debate on the motion, Heng had to call for a time-out. He hummed and hawed, flipping through his folder like a student stumbling through his class presentation.”
Tellingly, clips of PM Lee looking exasperated and instructing Heng on what to say in the session had been circulating online. The latter’s reputation has always been that of a genial technocrat, and not a political street fighter.
Then came the 2020 election, when Heng made his infamous “East Coast Plan” gaffe and led his East Coast team to a less than convincing victory with just 53.41 per cent of the vote share. And despite delivering five pandemic Budgets, he was not at the front and centre of the government’s efforts to combat the coronavirus, raising questions about whether he inspired confidence among his own colleagues.
Who will be next?
National broadsheet The Straits Times, without citing any polls or individuals in the know, has already anointed four men as potential successors to Heng.
They are: Transport Minister Ong Ye Kung and Trade and Industry Minister Chan Chun Sing, both of whom have often been spoken of as potential PMs; Education Minister Lawrence Wong, who has impressed with his handling of the pandemic; and National Development Minister Desmond Lee, the youngest of the quartet at 44.
With a Cabinet reshuffle due in two weeks, matters will hopefully become clearer.
But the damage has been done with Singapore’s leadership succession in disarray. The PAP must move quickly and decisively if it is to reassure stakeholders on the domestic and international fronts.
It is uncertain if Heng will even be around to contest at the next GE.
Once upon time, the late Lee declared “I will now play goalkeeper” as he handed over to Goh Chok Tong. In Heng’s case, he has called for his own substitution long before the 90 minutes are up. Who will emerge to see Singapore through the game?
Stay in the know on-the-go: Join Yahoo Singapore’s Telegram channel at
Related stories:
Heng Swee Keat: My age is key reason in decision to step aside as leader of 4G team
Hope for ‘clear outcome’ of new 4G team leader before next GE: PM Lee Hsien Loong
GE2020: I’m determined to see through COVID-19 crisis, hand over Singapore in good order – PM Lee
Most Singaporeans would choose Tharman as the next Prime Minister: survey
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kuasimi
https://psp.org.sg/ncmp-leong-mun-wa...pa-budget2021/
NCMP Leong Mun Wai questions the PA’s huge budget of S$796 million for 2021
During the recent debate in Parliament about Singapore’s Budget for 2021, PSP NCMP Leong Mun Wai noted that the People’s Association (PA) budget was surprisingly high yet again, while many Singaporeans are still unsure about the PA’s exact role in society.
NCMP Leong expressed his concerns surrounding the PA’s staggering budget of S$796 million, an amount that is higher then other Government Agencies with more obvious functions, like IRAS or Govtech.
In 2020, PA spent $199m on events, but more than $441m on administrative costs. NCMP Leong sought clarity on how PA money is spent, in line with PSP’s belief that transparency in Government is an important tenet of a modern society that honours the democratic process.
Finally, NCMP Leong also sought answers about the political affiliations of PA management and volunteers. As a body that receives public funds, it is imperative that the PA remains politically neutral – both in its internal structures and its external activities in the different communities of Singapore.
As PSP continues to strive towards transparency of Government, our NCMPs will continue to seek clarity on issues such as the true role of organizations like the People’s Association (PA) that receive and use taxpayer money.
The Video for Mr Leong’s speech can be viewed here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jaccy
political always effect economic of country and living cost of people that is us
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jaccy
please consider on your people life. What will happen if expenses always increase without increase of salary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alover
“You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you’ll never put Singapore together again: Humpty Dumpty cannot be put together again… my asset values will disappear, my apartments will be worth a fraction of what they were, my ministers’ jobs will be in peril, their security will be at risk and their women will become maids in other people’s countries, foreign workers. I cannot have that!" - Justifying million-dollar pay hike for Singapore ministers”
― Lee Kuan Yew
Somehow after Ministers leave Government and Politics, no MNC hired them for senior and top positions. Wong Kan Seng, Mah Bow Tan, Yeo Cheow Tong, Michael Palmer etc. were not seek after. So the truth is these Ministers are not really that top a talent that demanded top dollars.
Most after leaving Politics join companies run by friends, Government or Grassroot Leaders. Lui Tuck Yew became a Ambassador to China as nobody give him top jobs in top companies. George Yeo became Chairman at his tycoon friend’s company.
MPs who lost elections found jobs at GLC e.g. Ong Ye Kung (Capitaland), Ng Chee Meng (NTUC). The Aljunied, Hougang and Sengkang PAP losers.
So do PAP Politicians deserve to be highest paid in the world?
https://yoursdp.org/publ/political_h…nge-4-1-0-518/
“The PAP makes promises they deliver. The Opposition cannot deliver.”
“If you have a flood, just carefully think who is more likely to get the drainage put right and have the flood alleviated as quickly as possible: A PAP candidate with links to the ministers and Prime Minister, or a non-PAP candidate who has become an MP, like in Potong Pasir or Hougang, and who has to manage on his own?”
“That’s a fact of life.” (Today, 29 April 2006)
– Lee Kuan Yew,
Minister Mentor
https://sudhirtv.com/2021/05/06/the-...nd-whats-next/
The elites have run The Straits Times into the ground. What’s next?
Today we heard the news that Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) is spinning off its media unit, including The Straits Times and many other publications, into a non-profit entity. This follows years of consistently poor performance amid digital disruption and other changes to the media industry.
Wiser minds will engage in more thorough post-mortems—has anybody seen Ho Ching’s feed today?—but I wanted to spark a small conversation on the culture of elite governance in Singapore.
“If not for the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), the loss would have been a deeper S$39.5 million,” Lee Boon Yang, SPH’s chairman, said in reference to the media business’s first-ever lost of S$11.4m, for the financial year which ended Aug 31 2020.
(Which includes management salaries. In case you missed it, since the JSS began in February 2020, the Singaporean taxpayer has helped pay even more for the upkeep of numerous millionaire elites.)
All this got me thinking. Why exactly is Lee Boon Yang the chairman of SPH?
Lee is a trained vet who entered politics in 1984 aged 37, and then entered the cabinet in 1991.
After leaving the cabinet in 2009, in the very same year he became chairman of the board of Keppel Corporation, where he is paid S$750,000 annually. Financially, I guess it was a nice cushion after having to give up his million-dollar ministership.
After leaving politics altogether in 2011, in the very same year he became chairman of the board of SPH, where he is paid S$216,000 annually. Financially, I guess it was a nice cushion after having to give up his (similar) politician’s pay.
It is not clear what qualifications Lee had to lead the board of a global conglomerate with offshore, marine and other interests, or the board of Singapore’s biggest media company. (Subservience?)
What we do know is that during his tenure both companies have performed poorly. Their stocks have tanked. Keppel has been ensnared in a massive corruption scandal while SPH is now on its knees seeking charity to salvage, among other things, one of Singapore’s fabled brands, The Straits Times, which was established in 1845. (Or one hundred and twenty years before Singapore became a fishing village.)
Yet it may seem harsh to focus only on a non-executive chairman, whose remit is limited. Far more damning is the composition of the entire SPH Board, which in turn is responsible for the choice of SPH’s CEO: Ng Yat Chung, a former chief of defence with zero prior experience in the media industry, was hired in 2017. (He’s the person caricatured by Sonny Liew above). The Board advises and helps the CEO on strategy and operations.
Let’s compare these Singaporean elites to the people who run a far more successful media brand. In 1843, just two years before The Straits Times was founded, the Brits who stayed at home established The Economist.
I decided to do a quick-and-dirty comparison of board and senior executive pay between SPH/The Straits Times and The Economist Group (TEG). I’ve chosen 2019 to reflect pre-pandemic levels.
Disclosure: I am a (tiny) minority shareholder in TEG, which is privately held. After joining the firm in 2006, I first bought shares in 2007 under the Employee Share Ownership Plan, which I still hold (despite leaving the firm in 2013).
Chairman of the Board
SPH: Lee Boon Yang, S$216,000
TEG: Paul Deighton, S$206,500 (£118,000 x 1.75, a rough average for the year)
Total independent directors’ salaries
SPH: S$1.11m
TEG: S$588,000 (£336,000)
CEO
SPH: Ng Yat Chung, S$1.79m
TEG: Chris Stibbs, S$1.49m (£852,000)
Editor-in-chief
The Straits Times: Warren Fernandez, S$1m (estimate)*
The Economist: Zanny Minton Beddoes, S$796,000 (£455,000)
Think about the glaring skills gap.
Lee Boon Yang has little international experience, while Paul Deighton is a former Goldman Sachs executive who was later CEO of the London Olympics.
SPH’s independent directors list is like a scholars’ old boys club—and girls, including Janet Ang, SISTIC chairperson and new Nominated MP. TEG’s include the likes of John Elkann, CEO of Axor.
SPH’s CEO, Ng Yat Chung, has no prior experience in media and, by his own admission, is not even a gentleman. TEG’s CEO is Chris Stibbs, who was head of Group Finance when I joined in 2006, and worked his way up to the role, becoming CEO in 2013. (Lara Boro took over in Sep 2019.)
Finally, The Straits Times’s chief editor is somebody whose name is not known outside of Toa Payoh, while The Economist’s chief editor is the incredible Zanny Minton Beddoes, the first woman to hold the position.
Think about the skills gap, and then think again about the salaries.
Do appointments and salaries at SPH reflect merit and talent—or political allegiance?
Which other sectors are the elites slowly running into the ground?
Remember, Ho Ching and other elites love to lecture ordinary Singaporeans about improving ourselves to face global talent competition.
Well, let me ask the same question: is Lee Boon Yang the most talented person available to serve as chairman of Keppel and SPH? Does Ng Yat Chung have to face competition from the world’s best media moguls?
This whole SPH mess is symptomatic of one great problem with Singaporean business and politics today: overpaid elites with God complexes and too much to lose lording over underpaid, under appreciated underlings.
SPH’s chairman; the entire independent board; the CEO; and the editor-in-chief all earn markedly more than their peers at The Economist Group.
Let that sink in, dear reader.
Because soon they’ll be coming to you hat in hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
alover
https://www.change.org/p/the-board-o...eo-s-behaviour
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ex-ministe...064424531.html
Ex-minister Khaw Boon Wan to be Chairman of SPH’s not-for-profit media business: S Iswaran
Vernon Lee
Vernon Lee·Senior Editor
Mon, 10 May 2021, 2:44 pm·2-min read
Then Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan speaking to media on 6 February 2020 during a visit to Changi Airport. (VIDEO SCREENSHOT: Dhany Osman/Yahoo News Singapore)
SINGAPORE — Former Minister Khaw Boon Wan will be the chairman of Singapore Press Holdings’ not-for-profit media business, said Communications and Information Minister S Iswaran said in Parliament on Monday (10 May).
Delivering his Ministerial Statement, Iswaran said he has discussed the proposed restructuring of SPH’s media business into a not-for-profit entity and a company limited by guarantee (CLG) with management shareholders.
“They have all agreed that, given the national importance of this undertaking and the scale of the challenge, the chairman should be Mr Khaw Boon Wan. With his high standing and more than 25 years of public service experience in various senior appointments, Mr Khaw will be able to provide strong strategic leadership for the CLG,” said Iswaran.
Khaw has agreed to be the CLG chairman and he will be sharing his thoughts on its way forward in due course, Iswaran added.
At a press conference last Thursday, SPH announced plans to restructure its media business as a CLG. Such a model will allow the media business to receive funding from private and public sources, including financial support from the government.
The move to restructure SPH’s media business comes as its core segment’s revenue and profit continued to plunge amid falling advertisement revenue.
Following the Ministerial Statement, Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim asked Iswaran whether the government had suggested Khaw to take up the role before the management shareholders agreed to the suggestion. Lim clarified that she was not questioning Khaw’s personal integrity but noted that he was the former chairman of the ruling People’s Action Party, and former Coordinating Minister for Infrastructure.
In reply, Iswaran said Lim’s question appeared to be referring to the issue of editorial independence at the CLG. Citing the examples of current SPH chairman and former minister Lee Boon Yang and former public servants heading Mediacorp, Iswaran said these media leaders and their companies have earned the trust of Singaporeans.
“We should therefore be very clear that what matters is not a perceived political hue in appointments, but rather in the substance of the character and capability of the people who are involved…Mr Khaw Boon Wan is held in high standing in Singapore by many and beyond Singapore,” Iswaran said.
Khaw later issued a statement on the “heavy responsibility” of his new role and his anxiety given that he has “no digital media experience”.
Having been “blissfully content” in the past year, Khaw said, “This assignment will disrupt my retirement!…But I cannot allow a Singapore institution to go into decline. I will see how I can help unleash the talent and the passion in our newsrooms.”
Scroll back up to restore default view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BushTracker
The last time PAP raise GST from 5% to 7%. 2 months later (or there about) they increased their own salaries.
Let’s see if this will happen again.
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ministers-...043024792.html
Staff Writer, Singapore·Editorial Team
8 August 2018
‘Ministers are not paid enough’, says Goh Chok Tong: reports
Cut ministerial pay and the government will end up recruiting “very, very mediocre people” as office-holders, said Emeritus Senior Minister (ESM) Goh Chok Tong in a dialogue with South East District residents last Thursday (2 August).
“I am telling you the ministers are not paid enough, and down the road, we are going to get a problem with getting people to join the government, because civil servants now earn more than ministers,” said Goh. “Now we dare not pay ministers a good wage.”
“To any one of us here, $1 million is a lot of money. So where do you want to get your ministers from? From people who earn only $500,000 a year, whose capacity is $500,000 a year? So (when) I look for ministers, anybody who wants to be paid more than half a million, I won’t take him. You are going to end up with very very mediocre people, who can’t even earn a million dollars outside to be our minister. Think about that. Is it good for you, or is it worse for us in the end?”
The 77-year-old added that he had asked two potential candidates who were earning $5-10 million to stand in the 2015 General Election but they declined.
According to The Online Citizen (TOC) and The Straits Times, Goh was responding to a suggestion by Braddell Heights resident Abdul Aziz, 70, that ministerial salaries be cut to fund pensions for elderly people. A recording of the conversation was posted by social news site MustShareNews.com, and Goh’s staffers later provided TOC with a transcript of the exchange.
The former Prime Minister went on to cite the example of Senior Minister of State for Law and Health Edwin Tong, 48, who was a senior partner at law firm Allen and Gledhill when approached to take up his current position. Tong was earning more than $2 million annually as a senior counsel and now earns $500,000 per year, said Goh.
According to the ESM, “(Tong) said, at this stage of his life, he has got a house, he has got a mother-in-law to support, a father-in-law to support, his own parents and so on, what should he do?
“So I asked him, ‘Edwin, what are you in politics for?’ He said, ‘Here to serve.’ So I said, ‘Well, you know between $2 million and perhaps half a million, later on you hopefully become a full minister, $1 million, you have to decide which is more important.’
“He said, ‘Yes, I will take it on.’ And he felt very strongly that he could do the job.”
A controversial issue
The annual pay of political appointment-holders consists of five components: Monthly salary, 13th month bonus, Annual Variable Component (AVC) based on Singapore’s economic performance, performance bonus and a national bonus based on four socio-economic indicators.
The latter bonus can range from zero to six months, with good performers typically given three months.
Currently, the annual salary of an MR4 grade (entry level) minister stands at $1.1 million, while the Prime Minister earns $2.2 million. This is based on the assumption of an AVC of one month, good individual performance and the national bonus indicators being met.
In March, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean told Parliament that the government would maintain ministerial salaries at their current level.
“The economy is going through a period of transition and the government has decided to watch the changing economic conditions and outlook further, rather than making any refinements now,” said the 63-year-old, who is also Minister-in-charge of the Civil Service.
In 2017, a committee formed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong found that the existing salary framework remains “relevant and sound”. It did, however, recommended a pay rise of 9 per cent along with “fine-tuning of the national bonus conditions” to take into consideration changing economic conditions and national outlook, said Teo.
The recommended increase was to match the respective rise in the salary benchmark for an MR4-grade minister, which is currently set as the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore citizens.
The current total annual salary of an entry level Minister (i.e. MR4) is benchmarked to 60% of the median income of the top 1,000 earners who are Singapore Citizens.
In 2007, ministerial salaries were increased by some 60 per cent.
Related stories
Yahoo Poll: Are Singapore ministers paid enough?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/yahoo-poll...054706692.html
No change to ministerial salaries, says DPM Teo Chee Hean
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/budget-deb...061251917.html
MP Lim Wee Kiak apologises for comments on pay
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-fu...131941715.html
COMMENT: The furore over ministerial pay is gaining currency again
Nicholas Yong·Assistant News Editor
12 August 2018
It was a jaw-dropping moment, akin to a bolt of lightning from the blue. A first glance at Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s comments in a dialogue with South East District residents on 2 August elicited the instinctive response: is this fake news? Did he really say that?
Yes, he really did. “I am telling you the ministers are not paid enough, and down the road, we are going to get a problem with getting people to join the government…now we dare not pay ministers a good wage,” said Goh in a conversation with Braddell Heights resident Abdul Aziz, 70.
And the former Prime Minister (1990-2004) went further, “You are going to end up with very, very mediocre people, who can’t even earn a million dollars outside to be our ministers. Think about that. Is it good for you, or is it worse for us in the end?”
And just like that, the 77-year-old revived the perennial, and always contentious, issue of ministerial pay: just how much is enough? For “very, very mediocre” Singaporeans like myself who do not earn anywhere close to a million dollars, his comments also presented a false equivalence: that high pay somehow equates to a high level of competence.
Goh has since come out to say that he did not mean to call Singaporeans mediocre and that salaries are not the “starting point” in recruiting for the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). But the damage had already been done.
Singapore exceptionalism
While Goh was presumably unaware that he was being recorded, it feels baffling that a politician as seasoned and popular as him would treat a controversial issue in such a seemingly blase manner.
Eleven years after ministerial salaries were last increased – by a whopping 60 per cent – it was a reminder of the late Lee Kuan Yew’s infamous claim at the time that “our women will become maids in other countries” if their pay did not go up. Teo Chee Hean, who was then Defence Minister, added, “If we don’t do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse.”
It was Lee who, in 1994, advocated pegging the salaries of government ministers and top civil servants to that of the private sector. Today, Singapore has the highest paid ministers in the world, with an entry-level minister paid $1.1 million annually and the Prime Minister earning $2.2 million (including conditional bonuses).
But besides averting the destruction of Singapore, the issue has also become a political liability for the PAP, arguably even more so than hot-button topics such as train breakdowns and the influx of immigrants.
Ownself reward ownself?
It is safe to say that most Singaporeans do not begrudge our political appointment-holders being well compensated – what is in dispute is the exact amount they should be paid.
But what rankles is the seemingly arbitrary manner in which the government can raise its own salaries – an apparent case of ownself reward ownself, to paraphrase the popular saying. And while Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said in March that ministerial pay would remain unchanged for now, Goh’s remarks suggest that the PAP’s mindset on the matter has not changed.
The government has often benchmarked Singapore’s performance in a wide range of areas, ranging from the economy to education, against global indicators to underscore how far the country has progressed under their rule. Yet when it comes to ministerial pay, it has noticeably shunned using the same benchmarking practice to push its case.
So what are the arguments for the exceptionalism of Singapore – and the ministers – that they can muster to justify the massive disparity between their salaries and that of their peers elsewhere? Are the responsibilities of Singapore’s ministers more demanding relative to leaders from other countries? Is the Republic a far more complex nation to govern relative to others? Do some leaders from other countries not get a significant pay cut before entering public service?
An emotive issue
This issue has assumed greater resonance in light of the rapid ascension of the 4G leadership to positions of responsibility. For instance, just three years after being elected, Ong Ye Kung is already a full minister and a contender to succeed PM Lee. One cannot help but ask: what exactly has he – and his 4G peers – done to deserve to be paid millions? Who among the 4G leaders would be bold enough to address the issue, especially when their millions are at stake?
Then there is the manner in which office-holders are often talked up as exceptional individuals who could be earning much more outside of government – ESM Goh noted that Senior Minister of State for Law and Health Edwin Tong took a hefty pay cut to take up his current appointment.
But while ministers like Tong, K Shanmugam and Ng Eng Hen indeed sacrificed much financially to work in government, this is nevertheless a fallacious argument. Consider this: a significant number of the current ministers came from the civil service and the military and have never been tested in the private sector. For some, their current salaries are likely to be the most they have ever been paid.
The arguments can carry on all day, but ministerial pay will always be an emotive issue. With a General Election due in just two years, the PAP should be wary of reviving it. Otherwise, they may well find themselves paying a political price for paying their ministers so dearly.
Related stories
Ministerial pay debate: ‘Singaporeans know quality costs money’- Goh Chok Tong
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ministeria...122652830.html
Yahoo Poll: Are Singapore ministers paid enough?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/yahoo-poll...054706692.html
‘Ministers are not paid enough’, says Goh Chok Tong: reports
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/ministers-...043024792.html
COMMENT: Can Singapore’s elite circle turn around growing social divide?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-ca...124724650.html
COMMENT: Is Singapore becoming a catch-up nation?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/comment-si...063112601.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BushTracker
The last time PAP raise GST from 5% to 7%. 2 months later (or there about) they increased their own salaries.
Let’s see if this will happen again.