Reader Slams Civil Service Pay Hike

[The_Republic]

Finally, ST prints something different and it makes sense.



===========================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:aab199843d391110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=136020.1

March 28, 2007

NZ govt took heed of public views in setting pay


I AM rather disappointed with the Government's insensitivity in raising the issue of ministerial pay at a time when many ordinary Singaporeans are still trying to cope with rising living costs.

In 1994 when the then Prime Minister urged Parliament to approve the formula for setting ministers' pay, he suggested that paying $22 million a year for his team was a small price, compared to the cost of having an incompetent and corrupt government.

However, according to the TI 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index, there are four other countries which are less corrupt than Singapore. New Zealand is placed No. 1 (together with Finland and Iceland) whereas Singapore is ranked No. 5. Does this mean that the salaries of NZ ministers should be many times higher than those of Singapore ministers?

This doesn't seem to be the case. In a 2003 article by the NZ Herald, it was pointed out that even though the Prime Minister had the 'toughest job in the country' and an equivalent private-sector position would command a seven-figure salary, this would not be acceptable to taxpayers. Her increased salary of NZ$305,000 was deemed reasonable as US President George W. Bush earned only about NZ$330,470 a year.

In setting the remuneration packages of its ministers, the New Zealand government was sensitive to the perceptions of the public (whom it described as 'paying customers') and benchmarked figures against those of its Western counterparts.

As Singapore is an Asian country, should we not be benchmarking our figures against our Asian counterparts'? Even if we consider ourselves as a Western country, our ministers are already being paid many times more than President Bush himself.

So far, the impression we have been given is that serving our country is like any other financial transaction or commercial project; money is the primary focus and motivation. There is no altruism or patriotism linked to the discussion.

I hope that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his Government can take a different approach to this issue.

Vanessa Teo Toon Lin (Ms)

[xdivider]

So far, the impression we have been given is that serving our country is like any other financial transaction or commercial project; money is the primary focus and motivation. There is no altruism or patriotism linked to the discussion.

This is key and will likely be brushed over or ignored totally by PR replies............

[PhuaTehKor]

Yeah, we are the "paying customers" who have absolutely no say in how much they should be getting.

[KWSW]

you sure we are even customers... I dun think we got consumer rights in this case... oh well...

[xcelerator]

It's a ridiculous and unacceptable benchmark to peg public servants' pay to the private sector. When they do that and raise their salary benchmarks, it doesn't make sense to have the most expensively paid government and public service earning 4-5 times more than the governments in US, UK, China or NZ, etc who serve their population which are 5-100 times larger than ours. Are we saying that the ministers and public servants in other countries are of lower calibre than ours? I would think it's the opposite.

This salary benchmark pegged to the private sector doesn't hold water.
The appropriate benchmark is pegging it to a weighted pay of other governments (US, UK, NZ, HK, FR, Oz, etc). If ministers and public servants want to earn private sector pay, they should leave the public service and join the private sector. Where in the world do you see when you're doing a public service, you're drawing private sector pay?

:s27:

[Diablo80]

please.. although we are the 'paying customers' but we are also 'bonded' for another 5yrs so theres nothing you could do until the 'bond' has ended and u sign a new contract..

seriously if paying good money is needed for 'genius' to work in our civil sector instead of love for the country and passion in serving the people.. then i really wouldn't mind outsourcing FTs to work there.. because they are in for the money as well and well there is always someone better out there who can do a better job than some of our ministers here..

[fi5hbone]

Please keep us updated yeah?

Thanks!

[Kiwi8]

Finally, ST prints something different and it makes sense.



===========================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:aab199843d391110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=136020.1

March 28, 2007

NZ govt took heed of public views in setting pay


I AM rather disappointed with the Government's insensitivity in raising the issue of ministerial pay at a time when many ordinary Singaporeans are still trying to cope with rising living costs.

In 1994 when the then Prime Minister urged Parliament to approve the formula for setting ministers' pay, he suggested that paying $22 million a year for his team was a small price, compared to the cost of having an incompetent and corrupt government.

However, according to the TI 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index, there are four other countries which are less corrupt than Singapore. New Zealand is placed No. 1 (together with Finland and Iceland) whereas Singapore is ranked No. 5. Does this mean that the salaries of NZ ministers should be many times higher than those of Singapore ministers?

This doesn't seem to be the case. In a 2003 article by the NZ Herald, it was pointed out that even though the Prime Minister had the 'toughest job in the country' and an equivalent private-sector position would command a seven-figure salary, this would not be acceptable to taxpayers. Her increased salary of NZ$305,000 was deemed reasonable as US President George W. Bush earned only about NZ$330,470 a year.

In setting the remuneration packages of its ministers, the New Zealand government was sensitive to the perceptions of the public (whom it described as 'paying customers') and benchmarked figures against those of its Western counterparts.

As Singapore is an Asian country, should we not be benchmarking our figures against our Asian counterparts'? Even if we consider ourselves as a Western country, our ministers are already being paid many times more than President Bush himself.

So far, the impression we have been given is that serving our country is like any other financial transaction or commercial project; money is the primary focus and motivation. There is no altruism or patriotism linked to the discussion.

I hope that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his Government can take a different approach to this issue.

Vanessa Teo Toon Lin (Ms)

There's another letter from the other side:

March 28, 2007
Don't begrudge ministers a pay hike

THE subject of paying our ministers a top salary pegged to a private-sector benchmark has always been a controversial and emotive issue to most ordinary Singaporeans, especially when they are struggling to keep pace with the ever-increasing cost of living.

What exactly is the worth of our ministers? They are of high calibre with sharp minds, toiling for the country and sacrificing their privacy, family time and a top salary which they could easily command in the private sector or in their chosen professions.

In many countries we see some politicians joining the Cabinet ranks, coming in as scarecrows and leaving political office after one or two terms as fat cows.

Look at our ministers. Most of them look haggard and aged well before their time. Mr Raymond Lim and Mr Lim Swee Say have been ministers for less than a term and they have already lost their youthful look, burdened by the responsibilities of high office.

I am an admirer of the PAP Government and, at the same time, a robust critic on a number of issues, such as the bulk of prestigious scholarships going to the children of top earners at the expense of more-deserving children from low-income families who do equally well academically despite lacking the resources available to their richer counterparts, and the harsh treatment meted out to political dissidents to the extent of driving them away from their beloved Singapore.

I have been voting since the 1959 General Election and I have voted more times for the opposition than the PAP.

We have an administrative system that is efficient and transparent. Go to any government department or agency and all you have to do is take a queue number and wait for your turn to be served.

I can't think of another country where adult citizens are regularly given handouts in the form of shares, Workfare bonuses and CPF top-ups, and civil servants get mid-year and year-end bonuses, on top of 13th-month pay, along with additional variable performance bonuses.

This is wealth creation and wealth sharing at its best, made possible by a government led by an able team of ministers with the support of the people.

Probity, integrity and incorruptibility are the hallmark of our ministers. Some of them are worth their weight in gold. The public should not begrudge a pay increase for them.

K. Kalidas

WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN GOLD

Probity, integrity and incorruptibility are the hallmark of our ministers. Some of them are worth their weight in gold.

[tyroe1]

Its not the ordinary civil servants, but the 'top' ones whom we should worry about.

For the bulk of civil servants, they should be pegged to private sector. Otherwise how are they going to find and retain ppl???

[chryzh35]

Please do not confuse SG politics with other regions, in SG it is an industry and the company is called Singapore Holdings.

Politics is run like a business here, in how many countries do you see a kid wanting to be a politician when he grows up, parents pushing their children to get scholarships so that they can be civil servants?

Our GDP results is Singapore Holdings' profit statement, our GE is our Shareholders meeting. We even get shares in Singapore Holdings!!!

Let face the facts, SG is a business run like a family business. Those who cannot make it will leave to join another company or competitor. Will you question why your CEO or GM is paid so much salary and bonuses when you think you are working harder and deserve more.

Life is never a bed of roses so succeed whilst most don't and in Singapore Holdings "Four Legs Good Two Legs Bad" But "Some four legs are better then others".

[cslkelvin]

Get FT to replace those top talent lor...i believe lots of FT are better and cheaper than them.

[Bloodlust]

There's another letter from the other side:
FOOLS GOLD yeah? :D

[Humster]

FOOLS GOLD yeah? :D

Well not really...

Its REAL gold.

But then it again, its the first time in my life that I heard that you need to buy.....

"Probity, integrity and incorruptibility"

Thx now I finally understand the term:

"Every Man have a price"

[Kiwi8]

FOOLS GOLD yeah? :D
Well not really...

Its REAL gold.

But then it again, its the first time in my life that I heard that you need to buy.....

"Probity, integrity and incorruptibility"

Thx now I finally understand the term:

"Every Man have a price"
Fools' Real Gold .... :o

[xdivider]

Well not really...

Its REAL gold.

But then it again, its the first time in my life that I heard that you need to buy.....

"Probity, integrity and incorruptibility"

Thx now I finally understand the term:

"Every Man have a price"

wonder who they hired to draft the letters............

[Humster]

Fools' Real Gold .... :o

Uh...now its farmed by kids and teens from rual areas in China. And they will go spam the world with

"You want Gold? You Buy?"

[Bloodlust]

wonder who they hired to draft the letters............
ST forums probably have some real talented writers hired by the self scripted kanment to write them.

[sAVaGEmP5]

fools... really dumb. Ask FT to come in civil service ? I would mind if they got a hold onto any of our citizen ship record n they sell to some other ppl...

One word 'integrity'. If u r not born here, your parents are not born here, you won't have a sense of belonging here. Many other factors why FT shldn't be in civil service. Im not talking about the SAF in the context of civil service.

Just like asking you... to serve civil service in malaysia or australia. Abit wierd dun u think?

[cslkelvin]

fools... really dumb. Ask FT to come in civil service ? I would mind if they got a hold onto any of our citizen ship record n they sell to some other ppl...

One word 'integrity'. If u r not born here, your parents are not born here, you won't have a sense of belonging here. Many other factors why FT shldn't be in civil service. Im not talking about the SAF in the context of civil service.

Just like asking you... to serve civil service in malaysia or australia. Abit wierd dun u think?

Is there integrity if u need to pay a civil servant huge amt of salary so that he will not be corrupted?

[Franzz]

It's a greedy world, esp in this part of the globe. :(

[Quan]

Realistically, if all Singaporean is doing well, who give
the heck about ministers pay?

The sore point is that right after GST increase from 5% to 7%
Everyone at the top want to have a share of the bigger pie.

I would say - Wrong Timing!

And if money is not the main focus and motivation.
Then what is it? Patriotism??

[azacamis]

Realistically, if all Singaporean is doing well, who give
the heck about ministers pay?

The sore point is that right after GST increase from 5% to 7%
Everyone at the top want to have a share of the bigger pie.

I would say - Wrong Timing!

And if money is not the main focus and motivation.
Then what is it? Patriotism??

because not all of SG are doing well. You want to clean tables until you die? Everytime I see auntie uncle doing all those jobs make me feel that something is just not right. You mean in every other country, every man and woman are high fliers that they have loads of money in their bank when they grow old.

I think the point was made countless times. Are our ministers made accountable for receiving their high pay? Have you seen any ministers getting sacked or fired? Does that mean they NEVER make mistakes. Can simply saying 'Honest mistake' do? You want private pay, be accountable. If it is a private company, the CEO etc will get kicked out.

Anyway, we have always been asked to compete with FTs. They are higher quality and cheaper. We are lousy and asking for a lot. Why don't we get FT to run our country. Same principal right? That cannot be done? Nationalism, patriotism? Then ask our ministers where is theirs first. You want pay or you want to serve? If tbey are going to be corrupt with low pay, then please move on and let someone else do it. If they think private sector more worth it, then they have no right to be in the cabinet.

[ventin]

66.6% say ok leh so they get bigger check lah. hopefully next GE they wake up.

[resol612]

Corruption is placed in check by proper auditing, not by providing more pay.

It seems like a cheap reason to me to increase the pay. Pegging to private sector pay is definitely not wise; private sector is afterall different from public/government sector, and it will be like comparing the size of an apple to that of an orange.

Now, this increasing-more-pay move by the government surely sounded like corruption to me. Turns out that too much pay also results in corruption? How ironic.

[xdivider]

fools... really dumb. Ask FT to come in civil service ? I would mind if they got a hold onto any of our citizen ship record n they sell to some other ppl...

One word 'integrity'. If u r not born here, your parents are not born here, you won't have a sense of belonging here. Many other factors why FT shldn't be in civil service. Im not talking about the SAF in the context of civil service.

Just like asking you... to serve civil service in malaysia or australia. Abit wierd dun u think?

I think someone in a rally already mentioned that money and guaranteed entry was key for pple to join them. Din recall him saying anything abt loyalty and integrity but i may have forgotten as I dun have their 31337 mugging skills........... :)

[cannotliao]

those top government servants in US, UK, Germany, France..etc their pay can match their private sector top earners? if No then they must be very Corrupted :s11:

[nakorius]

I am interested to know if we face bad times, the salaries of those top professionals drop in the process of it.

Will the government also review accordingly and take a pay cut?

[networm]

... WORTH THEIR WEIGHT IN GOLD...

Hmmm... assuming the average overweight minister weighs about 70Kg, that translates to about S$2m, which is less than what our PM earns in a year and what a cabinet minister earns in 2... so no... their not worth their weight in gold... it's much more...

[octacon]

Are they going to stop using all their "blank" cheaque when more and more people start making noise in the media? This is one thing I already given up long ago.

[lilith]

I am interested to know if we face bad times, the salaries of those top professionals drop in the process of it.

Will the government also review accordingly and take a pay cut?

Yes, they cut by as much as 10 percent during the SARS period. And 17 percent during economic recession 2001 or so. It was followed by proportional pay increase after crisis of course. But they haven't announced how much salaries will rise this time.

The problem is that their salaries are extremely high already even with the cut.

And pegging it to private sector salaries doesn't make sense since they aren't running a company(theoretically). Nor are they accountable to the shareholders as per private sector.

As for attracting talent, some wonder about the motivations of people lured to public service with money.

It seems that the overriding concern for the government now is money, not the people, effects of luring "best talents" with money?

[windwaver]

66.6% say ok leh so they get bigger check lah. hopefully next GE they wake up.

Keep this thread going until the next GE, maybe the people will remember ;)

[Soulhacker]

Keep this thread going until the next GE, maybe the people will remember ;)

I would not be sure if this would work anymore. During every GE, there are always prediction that if the MIW gotten their mandate, everything would be increase after the GE including GST and the minister salary. And it all come true every time and yet the 666 still continue to vote for them.

Some more by the year 2011 or 2012, Sinkaporeans populations might be increased to the projected 6.5m from the current 4+m (And I remember a decade or so back it was only 2.8m, see how much foreigners we had imported since then?) through imports of foreigners. So by then Sinkaporeans voice would only grow smaller and smaller and eventually become insignificant. It might become a case that when you walk on the street, 2 out of 3 people you run into would be someone from a foreign land.

Even though I can accept the fact that it is a global trend of nations worldwide to want to attract foreign ‘talents’ but I wonder if they are to be so aggressive until like this.

[The_Republic]

Only government-introduced benchmarks are correct- for their own benefit.

=======================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:f06c2545fa991110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

March 29, 2007

Ministerial, govt pay: Flaws in benchmarks

THERE is unhappiness with ministers and senior civil servants getting top pay because of the private-sector benchmarks used, which include the remuneration of top lawyers and accountants.

Top lawyers and accountants are well-paid because they are often major equity partners. They have risked their own capital and taken on personal liabilities to build up their businesses.

Founder CEOs in other companies are likewise rewarded for their upfront capital risks. Ministers and civil servants bear no such risks.

Like stocks over bonds, the rewards of risk-taking are compounded over time - assuming you are not one of the many anonymous unsuccessful risk-takers.

Even if we ignore the risk premium for equity partners, why should all MR4 salaries be pulled up by including top lawyers in the benchmark? Shouldn't lawyer pay be relevant only to the Minister of Law and his top appointees? Shouldn't the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and his top appointees be benchmarked against the significantly lower pay of top engineers?

The premise of the SR9 benchmark is that a 32-year-old Administrative Service officer who was surely among the best in his A-level cohort of 50,000 14 years ago will always be the best and maintain his ranking in that cohort over the next 14 years. Will he?

The Administrative Service is closed to 'foreign talent' - non-scholars and non-Service people. It is an exclusive club which can only see departures as there is no practical post-university open recruitment to bring in new blood. This is different from the private sector where competition is career-long across the entire market, from within and outside the organisation.

Also, should private-sector bonuses, stock-option gains and commissions be included?

Why select only the top eight earners and why only six professions? Why not a larger cross-section of executives which would be more representative of the leadership profile of the country and economy? Why a moving target of the top 48 rather than the true benchmark of a fixed group of companies and positions? Such a moving sampling of only the best performers is not representative of how well the overall economy is doing.

Why the 15th-highest earner for the SR9 benchmark? Why not a larger sample and a less absolute rank order?

No matter what happens to the economy, the Government always wins because it takes only the best results.

Jacob Tan Teck Lee

[nakorius]

Singaporeans can protest all they want but in the end? It doesn't matter. (Linkin Park Woohoo!) :P

As one minister recently said, It is not about the right timing. It is about doing the right thing.

So once they say it's right. It's over.

[Jorgensen]

I wonder in view of our growing economy ,will CPF contribution rate ever be restored back to pre-recession rate of 40% or even the 36% which was last stood in 2003?

[Starmaster]

fools... really dumb. Ask FT to come in civil service ? I would mind if they got a hold onto any of our citizen ship record n they sell to some other ppl...

One word 'integrity'. If u r not born here, your parents are not born here, you won't have a sense of belonging here. Many other factors why FT shldn't be in civil service. Im not talking about the SAF in the context of civil service.

Just like asking you... to serve civil service in malaysia or australia. Abit wierd dun u think?


i am born here , my parents are born here , but i don have a sense of belonging

think is maybe because i see how we are treated as second class citizen in our own country , NS for singapore while jobs for FT. i feel we are being over exploited to the core , something has to be done.

[Cannib]

Wrong timing? For us yes. For the PAP, this is the correct timing.

By the time the next elections comes along, these hikes/raises will be forgotten by dangling some carrots again. :s16: :s27:

[sarduakar2000]

I am in the civil service, so the pay increment is definitely good for mi lor. And mi pay is definitely not peg to the benchmark and i am really getting lower compared to the private sector. So i think it shld be applicable to pple like mi n not mi higher up hehehe :)

[cKZeeE]

Finally, ST prints something different and it makes sense."Finally, ST prints something I agree with personally, which, of course, makes sense, and makes it a reputable and reliable source which prints good stuff."

And the rest is, sans a few, the usual frothing at the mouth.

Carry on.

[The_Republic]

More Public Outcry ??

Times are changing ??

======================================================

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/180438.asp (http://www.todayonline.com/articles/180438.asp)

It pays to have enterprising private and public sectors

High civil service pay may breed complacency .

Letter from Dr Anne Chong Su Yan .

While it is important to have good and honest top civil servants and ministers, there may be a flip side to the continued upward adjustments to their salaries, which seem necessary in order to retain them. .

Firstly, there may be a secret pool of potential entrepreneurs among our top civil servants and ministers. .

By paying them so highly, we may be inhibiting them from striking out to start their own business as the opportunity cost would be too high. .
As there is no guarantee of success in business, rather than unleashing their latent entrepreneurial ability, they will choose to remain in the safe and comfortable civil service. .

Secondly, by making civil service pay so attractive, we will inadvertently encourage our top scholars and other young talent to make the civil service their career choice. .

Surely, we do not want to propagate a system similar to that in ancient China when top scholars vied with each other in the imperial exams in order to join the civil service. .

This could have been why China continues to trail the West in technological innovation. .

What we need, instead, is to cultivate a culture of enterprise among our best brains so that they can create high-tech businesses that will create jobs by making the civil service less attractive than private enterprise, as in the West. .
Finally, by saying that we need to pay top dollar for top talent, we are saying certain people are indispensable. This may create a breeding ground of complacency. .

In fact, nobody is truly indispensable. The more people there are who know their services are dispensable, the better, since more of them will then be on their toes. .

It is true that one of the reasons why Singapore's civil service is free of corruption is the high pay enjoyed by top civil servants and ministers. .
However, a balance must be struck between paying enough and paying too much. .

Top civil servants must be made to realise that the attraction of working in the civil service does not lie with monetary remuneration. .

Rather, it should lie with the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of the country and its people and, in doing so, the opportunity to make a difference. .
Add pensions and benefits to the salary equation .

Letter from Teo Pee Ngoh .

I think that pegging the pay of ministers and senior civil servants to private sector pay is fair and transparent. .

However, is the pay data released by the Public Service Division a full reflection of the remunerations that ministers and senior civil servants enjoy? .

All Administrative Officers on retirement enjoy a life-long pension, based on a percentage of their last-drawn pay. In addition, they continue to be entitled to medical benefits. .

Given longer life expectancy and escalating health care costs, the pensions and medical benefits will add up. .

A private-sector employee generally does not enjoy a pension and healthcare benefits on retirement or leaving the company. .

Hence, a like-for-like comparison with the private sector should also factor in the pensions and medical benefits of the civil service. .

If only the civil service were more vibrant, creative ... .

Letter from Sim Juek Wah .

As I read various articles on this subject, a common message emerges: Civil servants leave for the private sector not just for the pay but also for more freedom, accountability and vibrancy. .

Mr Chan Soo Sen's example shows that good ideas can be rejected or delayed for years in the civil service ("A mandarin's temptation", March 29). .

Good, creative people naturally want to see the results of their contribution. If the environment they work in does not foster this, they leave. .

Rather than paying premium wages, the right way to keep such talent is not to stifle them in the first place but to allow them to excel naturally in a less "boxed-in" environment. .

I hope the civil service can be more mission-driven rather than merely following rules, procedures and policies.

[TheoDR]

Wrong timing? For us yes. For the PAP, this is the correct timing.

By the time the next elections comes along, these hikes/raises will be forgotten by dangling some carrots again. :s16: :s27:
The only place those carrots are gonna go are up our asses. Up the elevator of progress, we've been shafted. :(

[xdivider]

More Public Outcry ??

Firstly, there may be a secret pool of potential entrepreneurs among our top civil servants and ministers. .

By paying them so highly, we may be inhibiting them from striking out to start their own business as the opportunity cost would be too high. .
As there is no guarantee of success in business, rather than unleashing their latent entrepreneurial ability, they will choose to remain in the safe and comfortable civil service.



Not bad, Im all for them showing me they can get the same pay outside in a non GLC company. Im pretty sure they are talents........

[The_Republic]

Maybe PAP should make a law for private sector to peg all retirement benefits to public sector.

=======================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:f458648bcd3a1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175292411241


March 31, 2007

Do ministers enjoy big pension after two terms?


I REFER to the article, 'Top govt salaries far behind private sector' (ST, March 23). In view of the impending ministerial pay hike, I have a question that I hope the authorities can answer.

I understand that the Administrative Service is one department in the Civil Service that remains on a pensionable scheme, even with the implementation of CPF. Is it true that, under this scheme, when a minister who has served a minimum of two terms reaches the age of 55, he is entitled to a lifetime pension of two thirds of his last-drawn ministerial salary, even if he subsequently takes up a job in the private sector?

If this is indeed the case, then using the MR4 benchmark for ministers at $1.2 million, retired ministers will be paid a handsome $792,000 per annum till the day they die. I have not heard of any company in the private sector that offers as competitive a pension plan as this.

The rationale behind the pay hike is 'to attract the best talent and prevent corruption'. I strongly support the stand that good work should be rewarded, but my contention is that if I am correct about the pension scheme, then even with the current pay scale you can be sure that there will be many candidates for the Administrative Service to pick the crème de la crème, and for them to stay clear of corruption.

Jolene Ong (Miss)

[TheoDR]

Ah, seems that younger S'poreans are able to think better and question, especially in the internet age where the local media isn't the only source of information. If things continue the way they are going, the 2010 elections are going to be a merry show. :s42:

[Racers85]

Ah, seems that younger S'poreans are able to think better and question, especially in the internet age where the local media isn't the only source of information. If things continue the way they are going, the 2010 elections are going to be a merry show. :s42:time are changing. with the import of young foreigners, it will import more different changing and they still dunno abt it...

[playtime]

Maybe PAP should make a law for private sector to peg all retirement benefits to public sector.

=======================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:f458648bcd3a1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175292411241


March 31, 2007

Do ministers enjoy big pension after two terms?


I REFER to the article, 'Top govt salaries far behind private sector' (ST, March 23). In view of the impending ministerial pay hike, I have a question that I hope the authorities can answer.

I understand that the Administrative Service is one department in the Civil Service that remains on a pensionable scheme, even with the implementation of CPF. Is it true that, under this scheme, when a minister who has served a minimum of two terms reaches the age of 55, he is entitled to a lifetime pension of two thirds of his last-drawn ministerial salary, even if he subsequently takes up a job in the private sector?

If this is indeed the case, then using the MR4 benchmark for ministers at $1.2 million, retired ministers will be paid a handsome $792,000 per annum till the day they die. I have not heard of any company in the private sector that offers as competitive a pension plan as this.

The rationale behind the pay hike is 'to attract the best talent and prevent corruption'. I strongly support the stand that good work should be rewarded, but my contention is that if I am correct about the pension scheme, then even with the current pay scale you can be sure that there will be many candidates for the Administrative Service to pick the crème de la crème, and for them to stay clear of corruption.

Jolene Ong (Miss)

I seem to recall it being a case that a minister who serves beyong 55 will get his pension and still be paid full salary at the same time.

[The_Republic]

Found this in another forum. Someone started a petition but I do not think it will work. Same old result and everyone forgets at GE 2011.

========================================================

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=136379.1

http://www.petitiononline.com/paypap1/petition.html

To: Prime Minister of Singapore


We, citizens of Singapore and concerned individuals, STAUNCHLY OPPOSE the proposed drastic increase in the pay of the ministers and other members of the Administrative Service.

The ministers and scholar civil servants are already drawing millions with undisclosed bonuses per person at a time when more than 40% of the households in Singapore cannot even make ends meet and are seeing their real income deteriorate over the last two decades. Even the US President, whose responsibilities *FAR OUTWEIGH* many Singapore governments combined, is but drawing a salary of only USD400k or slightly more than SGD600k(http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa011600a.htm)! Leaders of other developed countries are even less well paid.

In addition, by pegging the Administrative Service's pay to the richest individuals in the country, it only serves to motivate the ministers and their scholar civil servants to serve only the rich. Using the per capita GDP as the benchmark is more equitable as this will ensure that they fulfill their duty towards all Singaporeans. Why should anyone in a risk-free ministerial or scholar civil servant post, especially in a context in which accountability to the people is virtually non-existent, deserves to be paid like a successful risk-taking entrepreneur?

The government claims that without paying the Administrative Service out-of-the-world remnuneration, it will become corrupt and will be unable to retain talents. This is misleading as corruption takes place only when there is no effective checking of the government, such as when the Opposition parties, civil groups and the public media are being manipulated, suppressed and destroyed through despotic means.

In addition, their so-called talents are but selected from teenagers coming from rich and connected families based on their academic results, which more often than not, do NOT equate to actual performance in their later life. This can be attested to their numerous disastrous policies, which Singaporeans are currently suffering from. In addition, talents abound in the country, but are prevented from coming forward to serve due to the stifling political climate of one-party, one-family rule. As such money is not the real issue. It is definitely not the solution.

It is therefore obvious that the proposal to give the ministers and scholar civil servants an awesome raise on top of their already obscene pay is completely unjustifiable. The logic of pegging their pay to the richest individuals is glaringly flawed and insulting to our intelligence. It is but meant to satisfy the insatiable greed of vested individuals. We reject it unreservedly. In fact, we demand a big pay *CUT* for them for their dismal 'service' towards the majority of Singaporeans over the last two decades.

N.B. See also

Say NO to 7% GST in Singapore!
http://www.petitiononline.com/GST7/petition.html

Sincerely,

[LeongSzeHian]

Business Times - 27 Mar 2007

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Time to temper focus on monetary rewards I REFER to the report, 'Govt must close pay gap to retain talent: PM Lee - Pay for staff Grade 1 has slipped to 55% of benchmark' (BT, March 23).

While it is important to retain talent, we may need to temper the focus on monetary rewards. Otherwise, we may inadvertently be setting an unhealthy example for Singaporeans in general and sending an undesirable message to our children - that money is everything.

In this connection, Singapore has been ranked 130th out of 178 countries for happiness, 40th out of 41 countries for libido, 30th out of 35 countries for courtesy, fifth in the world for prisoners per capita and 105th in the world for income equality.

Has our over-emphasis on monetary rewards led to us being unhappy because we spend too much time and effort chasing more and more things and money - at a cost of having little time or energy to have sex, an uncaring attitude towards others and an inclination to commit illegal acts to get rich quick, resulting in many offenders?

Recent remarks by the Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy - that 'Singapore should stop trying so hard to be world class, simply because it already is' - may be instructive. We may need to pay more attention to trying to improve those 'soft' areas in which we are far from world class - like happiness, libido and courtesy.

Singapore seems to be particularly good in the economic arena, but Third World in the non-economic arena.

Perpetuating the strategy of paying more and more to keep civil servants may be self-defeating. As a small country, we will find it increasingly difficult to compete with bigger, more developed countries that can offer higher pay, perks - and a better lifestyle to boot.

Perhaps we should shift some of the emphasis to the honour and duty of public service, contribution to our country and the pride and joy such service brings - which no amount of money can buy.

Our founding ministers, like our Minister Mentor, worked tirelessly for very little pay to take Singapore from Third World to First World status.

If the most senior civil servants who are now earning $1.21 million a year need to be paid $2.2 million to want to stay, I think there may be something wrong with the values we are teaching in our schools, our homes and our society at large.

Furthermore, benchmarking pay to the top echelons of private sector professions may not be appropriate, because civil servants do not have to face market competition, technological obsolescence, shareholders, investors, etc.



Finally, as long as our parents tell their children to aspire to be scholars and civil servants, entrepreneurship may never flourish in Singapore, no matter how hard we try to promote it. Leong Sze Hian
Singapore

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://secure-sg.imrworldwide.com/cgi-bin/m?rnd=1175462063796&ci=sg-sph&cg=BT&sr=1024x768&cd=32&lg=en-us&je=n&ck=y&tz=-7&ct=lan&hp=n&tl=&si=file%3A///C%3A/Documents%2520and%2520Settings/LeongSzeHian/My%2520Documents/Story%2520Print%2520Friendly%2520Pagebtcivilservantspay.mht&rp=

[gigabit]

http://www.petitiononline.com/paypap1/petition.html

[The_Republic]

PAP vs The People


========================================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:9cbf1c2839da1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

April 2, 2007

Strength of S'pore rests on people not just govt

I REFER to the article, 'What's this place worth to you?' by Mr Paul Jacob (ST, March 24).

Mr Jacob exposes our true selves - ever envious of those better than us, but seldom sparing a thought for the less fortunate.

It serves as a timely reminder for our elites to stop comparing themselves with top bankers and accountants and to focus instead on improving the livelihood of the commoners.

He urges us to look at where we came from and who got us where we are today. He reminds us of such grand undertakings as the transformation of Jurong swamp into the engine room for the modern Singapore economy and the creation of the icon that would be Singapore Airlines.

But these are the contributions of our leaders from an earlier era, contributions we Singaporeans are forever grateful for.

What has our present generation of politicians to show?

It is not that citizens do not appreciate the fact that Singapore ticks, but all first-world cities tick.

Hygienic eating places and clean running water are commonly available in all first world cities.

What is it that we have here that other places don't have? Why must we pay a premium for what everybody else has?

All the things that are collectively provided by Singaporeans are collectively worth the whole of Singapore and the prize goes ultimately to all Singaporeans, not to one or two politicians.

The quality of our government would be nothing without the quality of its people, and the strength of the Singapore brand ultimately rests with Singaporeans.

Paying my politician top dollar may not dent my pocket, but it angers many ordinary Singaporeans who have to pay more for everything without having the freedom to write their own paycheck.

What the politicians have to show of late doesn't demonstrate the talent they claim to have, and certainly not the justification for their millions.

The pact of mutual benefit, which has been used more often than it should, is fast losing faith among Singaporeans who find their salaries relatively unchanged in a decade when ministers, in good times or bad, continue to earn millions.

Ng Kok Lim

[redtea]

That was one daring letter!

[The_Republic]

SGD 290 for the old,sick and helpless but SGD 1.2 million ++ for PAP Minsters..??

No logic.


========================================================

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/180936.asp

Where's the trickle-down effect?
As we pursue wealth and F1 fame, let's not ignore the poor Bridging the widening gap

Letter from Brendan de Souza
Letter from Daphne Tan

I read with much interest the article by Jasmine Yin and Gracia Chiang entitled, "How many portions of help, Sir?" (March 31-April 1) and I was very impressed by what was written.
.

Credit must be given to your paper in highlighting a situation that has been ignored for far too long.

.
Even more so, when on the same front page, we see another story about tycoon Ong Beng Seng and the Formula 1 deal.

.
Yes, Formula 1 will bring in tourism dollars and help our economy. But we have to make sure that the wealth trickles down to help the disadvantaged Singaporeans.

.
For one, I and many other Singaporeans do not really give a hoot about what the rich socialites are wearing to various balls here.

.
The gulf between the rich and the poor is widening swiftly, but who do they have to turn to?

.
I find it odd that on the one hand, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan thinks that $290 is enough for most in the Public Assistance schemes to live on and yet, on the other hand, salaries are going up and up.
.
A gulf is fast emerging here in Singapore — the rich have it made, but the middle income are struggling, let alone those on public assistance.
.
If one $3.30 meal already wipes out half a day's allowance for someone on public assistance, what about his other basic needs? What if he falls ill?
.
Let's hope that all these talk about not leaving the poor behind is not just that — talk.
.
Thank you for highlighting the issue of those living on public assistance schemes, particularly the elderly who live alone.
.
It's a sobering reality which needs to be brought to attention, especially since we're living in an age where it's not uncommon to find chief executive officers earning $5 million a year, yet some folks cannot even afford their daily meals.
.
It's even more shocking that the authorities are talking about principles, regarding the few extra dollars it would take to give these people their basic requirements.

[Tuakong]

somehow our opposition MPs are keeping mum about it.
Maybe this is 1 way to effectively zip the mouths of opposition MPs. :D

[Tuakong]

dun really understand their contributions to society.
Can you think of their job functions that justify their already premiumsalaries?
I can think of a few:
1. Shaking hands
2. Carrying babies
3. Smile, Smile, Smile
4. Meet the MP sessions
5. hip-hop dancing
6. Cut ribbons and plant trees
7. Attend RC dinners
8. Provide standard PR responses to queries
9. Think of implementing new ways of taxes
10. Raise upstart, selfish & inconsiderate children
11.........anything else?

[tequila_powered]

somehow our opposition MPs are keeping mum about it.
Maybe this is 1 way to effectively zip the mouths of opposition MPs. :D
If you are thinking in terms of the opp MPs being "bought" to keep mum by being part of the mega-dollar increase -

1. the increase is for civil servants especially the top end. Not MPs, as others had posted before.
2. iirc someone also posted a note from LowTK challenging the raise?

[xcelerator]

Principles, value system, etc are all hao-siao. If they really have, they wouldn't
even plant seeds of gambling on our soil but they went ahead and start with 2 giant plantations followed by many more in the years to come. When it comes down to the wire,
money pulls them away from the values.

No other governments are paid higher than them. Are they superhumans?
Do we need superhumans to govern a population of 4.5 million?
If they are so super, are they saying that if they join the US or UK government,
they should be paid hundreds of millions?

It's ridiculous.
:s27:

[satayxp]

somehow our opposition MPs are keeping mum about it.
Maybe this is 1 way to effectively zip the mouths of opposition MPs. :D

they scared open mouth will have to wear new suits hehehe

wonderful system we have, no wonder LKY can get doctorate for Law :s13:

[redtea]

dun really understand their contributions to society.
Can you think of their job functions that justify their already premiumsalaries?
I can think of a few:
1. Shaking hands
2. Carrying babies
3. Smile, Smile, Smile
4. Meet the MP sessions
5. hip-hop dancing
6. Cut ribbons and plant trees
7. Attend RC dinners
8. Provide standard PR responses to queries
9. Think of implementing new ways of taxes
10. Raise upstart, selfish & inconsiderate children
11.........anything else?Not everyone wants to lead a life wearing a mask, being a fake, and spends the rest of the life thinking about what the masses think of him/her.

Public life is actaully quite hard.

[satayxp]

Not everyone wants to lead a life wearing a mask, being a fake, and spends the rest of the life thinking about what the masses think of him/her.

Public life is actaully quite hard.


Oh hard ah?? Well get out then, no one is holding a gun to their head asking them to join public service.

[Soulhacker]

Not everyone wants to lead a life wearing a mask, being a fake, and spends the rest of the life thinking about what the masses think of him/her.

Public life is actaully quite hard.

But unlike other bad-democratic system where public uproar or unhappiness against a politician or his policy can ruin his career upright or diminish his chance in winning the next election, our good-democratic system here actually shelter them from such ill-effects. After all it would be foolish to put the fate of our top-notch talents in the hand of ignorant peasants.

As long as these top-notch talents toe the line and don’t do anything that angered their master, it does not matter how the public view or think of them and a mistake would be forgiven as honest one. A certain minister or MP might not be popular with the masses, but as long as he or she can get into the good book of the party, there is always walkover or chance of them returning to power if thing goes wrong.

I remembered a certain someone used to lose to opposition in a GE. But because he is our top-notch talent that our nation cannot afford to lose in such a horrible way at the hand of ignorant establishment hating peasants, another MP conveniently chooses to retire at such a wonderful timing and thus allow that someone to get back to the driving seat through a by-election. And he had so far been doing a great job building empty flats and catching residents for falling windows and ensuring that every Sinkaporeans can afford a roof over their head, except those who go homeless by choice of cause. Can you imagine what our future would become if we actually keep losing talents like this just because the public don’t support them? We might now be living in slump and not in a flat.

So what matter most is how and what their master and their own party think of their ability. Public opinions don’t really hurt or affect their jobs and performance.

Unless of cause, these people actually have a soul or something. Then perhaps it would be hard.

[alvinaloy]

somehow our opposition MPs are keeping mum about it.
Maybe this is 1 way to effectively zip the mouths of opposition MPs. :D

If you are thinking in terms of the opp MPs being "bought" to keep mum by being part of the mega-dollar increase -

1. the increase is for civil servants especially the top end. Not MPs, as others had posted before.
2. iirc someone also posted a note from LowTK challenging the raise?
I read a quote somewhere about Low Thia Kiang suggesting that ministers' salaries be pegged to the bottom income earners; something along the lines of 100x of these people's salary. This would give more motivation to the Government to help them.

Personally, it's a good suggestion but I believe that there are also cons associated with it.

[tequila_powered]

I think I just spotted a gap in their "communication".


Today's ST pageH4. In reply to a Mr Jacob Tan letter to Forum about private Top Lawyers and accountants (used for benchmark) are well paid because they are often major equity partners hence the high risk to personal capital and personal liabilities = high rewards; the counter reply only mentioned Ministers having to undergo GE. That's the risk? Imho that's more like 360 Performance Evaluation. Secondly, no personal capitals or liabilities are at stake. Thirdly, they avoided the question of risks to the non-Minister superscale office holders that do no need to undergo GE process.

PSD, if you are reading, your response is lacking. =:p

[fi5hbone]

Social workers, the ones who spend their lives trying to help the poor and the disadvantaged to have better lives, are being paid zilch. Not only that, having so limited resources and the inflexible spending cap makes it so difficult to help them properly. Imo, they are the ones really serving the people instead of the ministers.

[redtea]

I read a quote somewhere about Low Thia Kiang suggesting that ministers' salaries be pegged to the bottom income earners; something along the lines of 100x of these people's salary. This would give more motivation to the Government to help them.

Personally, it's a good suggestion but I believe that there are also cons associated with it.Yeah, not feasible. The lowest income earner can be $0.

So $0 X 100 = $0

They are the elite, so surely don't want to associate their pay with people of lower income group.

[The_Republic]

Everyone seems to jumping on the Increment Bandwagon.

Even retirees are chasing back-payment.

PAP can even ignore their once faithful supporters but increase their own first when comes to money.
===========================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:d17f1c2839da1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD

April 2, 2007

Changes to pension benefits needed still

I WISH to seek our Government's views on all pensioners who retired more than 15 years ago.

With regards to the Singapore Allowance, the Government had increased the said allowance from $180 to $200, while the gross pension ceiling was raised from $1,100 to $1,150.

I hope that the Government would kindly increase the pension ceiling from $1,150 to $1,500.

This is so that pensioners who had worked from 1960 to 1995 with low incomes, may benefit as well and at the same time, be able to support themselves with the higher standards of living in Singapore.

Furthermore, the basic pension given to any pensioner is fixed from the beginning without any increase. The basic pension salaries should be revised every five years in order to meet high inflation rates and rises in GST.

Finally, with regards to the medical and dental benefits, these have not been revised for a good number of years.

The dental subsidy is only $70 per year and the medical subsidy is at $10 per visit to private clinics.

It is time this is revised accordingly as all rates in private and dental clinics have gone up excessively.

Hurdial Singh

[tequila_powered]

The H4 article in its entirety.


http://news.asiaone.com.sg/a1news/20070402_story11_1.html




PDS dispels myths on ministers, civil servants pay

It responds to public's misperceptions of civil service salaries, perks and pensions



Apr 2, 2007

AsiaOne

The salaries of Singapore's ministers and top civil servants have fallen to 55 per cent of the benchmark compared to private sector, and they should be earning $2.2 million, according to the Public Service Division.

Their current salary of $1.2 million is an all-inclusive package covering bonues, and one-third of this package is currently variable.

The PSD disclosed these in response to readers' letters to The Straits Times and online comments on the pay, perks and pensions of ministers and top civil servants, after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the annual Administrative Service dinner on March 22, that public service salaries had fallen behind the public sector.



Details of salary changes across the civil service will be announced in Parliament on April 9.

The salaries of ministers and top civil servants are pegged at two-thirds of the median income of the top eight earners in each of six professions.

Despite the current salary shortfall, some Singaporeans have questioned if there were hidden benefits not listed as part of the salary, which would make make the civil servants' position better than it seemed.

The PSD said the figure of $1.2 million is the maximum amount they can receive, since it includes all bonuses and variable component. About one-third of this annual salary package is variable and depends on the minister or civil servant's performance as well as Singapore's economic situation, it told The Straits Times.

On pensions, the PSD said these are not calculated based on total annual salary packages, and that currently only about half of a minister's montly salary is pensionable.

And contrary to popular belief, ministers do no receive perks like free certificates of entitlement (COEs) or a waiver on maid levies and taxes, said the PSD.

Labour chief Lim Swee Say, commenting on the proposed pay rise, said it is in the workers' interest as it ensures the Government will continue to attract the top talent.

Only with good leaders would Singapore remain afloat in an increasingly competitive global economy, which in turn ensures workers will continue to have jobs, said Mr Lim.

PSD's responses to comments from the public

SALARIES

Q: Do ministers and administrative officers (AOs) get bonuses on top of the $1.2 million they receive a year?

A: Public Service Division: The annual salary figure of $1.2 million includes all components – monthly pay, mid- and year-end payments, allowances, performance bonuses and GDP bonus. There are no other payments.

Q: Do ministers holding more than one portfolio receive additional salaries?

A: A minister receives one salary, even if he holds two or more portfolios.

Q: Do ministers have key performance indicators or performance appraisals?

A: They are appraised by the Prime Minister. A large part of their pay is linked to individual performance and how the economy is doing. Currently, a third of their package is performance-related.

Q: What about the view that ministers enjoy a secure job, with none of the risks experienced by top earners in the private sector?

A: Ministers do not have guaranteed tenures. They face general elections every five years.

[tequila_powered]

PERKS

Q: What kinds of medical benefits do ministers and AOs receive?

A: Ministers are on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme, like the majority of civil servants. They do not receive any hospitalisation benefits.

Instead, ministers receive 1 per cent of salary (capped at $70 a month and at 17 months a year) paid into their Medisave. They can use this to buy health insurance plans. For outpatient treatment, it is capped at $350 a year for each minister.

Ministers co-pay 15 per cent of medical expenses at restructured hospitals. Where it is for his dependents, such as spouse and children up to 18 years, the minister co-pays 40 per cent.

But this is all subject to a cap of $350 per year. Any unused amount at the end of the year is put into the minister's Medisave account. There are no extra benefits for them or their spouse or children. Their parents do not get medical benefits.

It is similar for AOs who joined after January 1994.

Q: Do ministers and AOs enjoy additional perks?

Ans: Ministers do not receive any perks. The salary is everything there is. They pay their own COEs, ERP, maid levies and taxes. The official car can be used for official purposes only, not for personal use.

It is the same for AOs.

For networking purposes, senior AOs take up golf memberships at corporate rates but they pay subscription and membership fees out of their own pocket.

PENSIONS

Q: Do ministers and AOs receive pensions?

A: Only those who have served at least eight years as an office holder (for example, minister or minister of state) qualify for a pension.

Since 1994, the pensionable salary component at each grade has been frozen. All subsequent salary increases, whether in the form of monthly adjustments or increase in annual components, are non-pensionable.

The pensions for ministers are not calculated based on the total annual salary package each year.

Bonuses, allowances and other annual salary components are not included in the calculation of the minister's pension.

Only the pensionable portion of the minister's monthly salary is used and the actual pension also depends on the length of pensionable service. Currently, only about half of the monthly salary of a minister is pensionable.

As for post-retirement medical benefits, all office-holders, including ministers who qualify for pensions, continue on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme. They do not get free medical after retirement.

For administrative officers to qualify for a pension, they must have served for at least 15 years. But they lose the pension once they resign from service.

As with ministers, only about half of AOs' monthly salaries are pensionable.

Also, MPs appointed after Jan 1, 1995 are no longer eligible for pensions.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE

Q: Some observers believe that under-performing AOs are allowed to remain in the service. Is this true?

A: The appraisal system is rigorous. There is an annual assessment on performance and potential by his boss, the permanent secretary.

Officers of the same seniority are then grouped, ranked and graded good, average or poor.

Non-performers are not given performance bonuses. And those who do not meet the retention requirement are asked to leave the Administrative Service.

Q: Is it true that only scholars can join the Administrative Service (AS) and once admitted, they can stay on indefinitely?

A: The AS takes in officers at all levels, including those who do not come through the scholar route. It also takes in mid-career entrants, whether from the private or public sectors.

Admission and retention criteria for the AS are much stricter than the civil service.

To remain, the officer must show the potential to become at least a Deputy Secretary or chief executive of a statutory board.

Those without this potential, even if they are good performers, will be asked to leave the AS. Some choose to resign while others continue to contribute in other parts of the public sector.

CIVIL SERVICE

Q: The civil service is said to be an iron rice bowl where poor performers are tolerated. How true is this?

A: The Civil Service takes a tough stance on under-performers. Those who do not meet job expectations are counselled and given an opportunity to improve. If they fail to do so, they are asked to leave.

In recent years, an increasing number of government agencies have been recruiting staff on fixed term contracts. Only good officers are offered permanent positions subsequently.

[wrcroger]

The more I think and discuss about this issue, the less respect I have for those ministers who support the pay increase proposal. I also lose respect for those ministers and civil servants who may not agree with the proposal but keep quiet about it anyway.

[The_Republic]

PERKS

Q: What kinds of medical benefits do ministers and AOs receive?

A: Ministers are on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme, like the majority of civil servants. They do not receive any hospitalisation benefits.

Instead, ministers receive 1 per cent of salary (capped at $70 a month and at 17 months a year) paid into their Medisave. They can use this to buy health insurance plans. For outpatient treatment, it is capped at $350 a year for each minister.

Ministers co-pay 15 per cent of medical expenses at restructured hospitals. Where it is for his dependents, such as spouse and children up to 18 years, the minister co-pays 40 per cent.

But this is all subject to a cap of $350 per year. Any unused amount at the end of the year is put into the minister's Medisave account. There are no extra benefits for them or their spouse or children. Their parents do not get medical benefits.

It is similar for AOs who joined after January 1994.

Q: Do ministers and AOs enjoy additional perks?

Ans: Ministers do not receive any perks. The salary is everything there is. They pay their own COEs, ERP, maid levies and taxes. The official car can be used for official purposes only, not for personal use.

It is the same for AOs.

For networking purposes, senior AOs take up golf memberships at corporate rates but they pay subscription and membership fees out of their own pocket.

PENSIONS

Q: Do ministers and AOs receive pensions?

A: Only those who have served at least eight years as an office holder (for example, minister or minister of state) qualify for a pension.

Since 1994, the pensionable salary component at each grade has been frozen. All subsequent salary increases, whether in the form of monthly adjustments or increase in annual components, are non-pensionable.

The pensions for ministers are not calculated based on the total annual salary package each year.

Bonuses, allowances and other annual salary components are not included in the calculation of the minister's pension.

Only the pensionable portion of the minister's monthly salary is used and the actual pension also depends on the length of pensionable service. Currently, only about half of the monthly salary of a minister is pensionable.

As for post-retirement medical benefits, all office-holders, including ministers who qualify for pensions, continue on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient Scheme. They do not get free medical after retirement.

For administrative officers to qualify for a pension, they must have served for at least 15 years. But they lose the pension once they resign from service.

As with ministers, only about half of AOs' monthly salaries are pensionable.

Also, MPs appointed after Jan 1, 1995 are no longer eligible for pensions.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE

Q: Some observers believe that under-performing AOs are allowed to remain in the service. Is this true?

A: The appraisal system is rigorous. There is an annual assessment on performance and potential by his boss, the permanent secretary.

Officers of the same seniority are then grouped, ranked and graded good, average or poor.

Non-performers are not given performance bonuses. And those who do not meet the retention requirement are asked to leave the Administrative Service.

Q: Is it true that only scholars can join the Administrative Service (AS) and once admitted, they can stay on indefinitely?

A: The AS takes in officers at all levels, including those who do not come through the scholar route. It also takes in mid-career entrants, whether from the private or public sectors.

Admission and retention criteria for the AS are much stricter than the civil service.

To remain, the officer must show the potential to become at least a Deputy Secretary or chief executive of a statutory board.

Those without this potential, even if they are good performers, will be asked to leave the AS. Some choose to resign while others continue to contribute in other parts of the public sector.

CIVIL SERVICE

Q: The civil service is said to be an iron rice bowl where poor performers are tolerated. How true is this?

A: The Civil Service takes a tough stance on under-performers. Those who do not meet job expectations are counselled and given an opportunity to improve. If they fail to do so, they are asked to leave.

In recent years, an increasing number of government agencies have been recruiting staff on fixed term contracts. Only good officers are offered permanent positions subsequently.

This long article would be better place in the thread :
" Sick of constant Media blitz in support of GST and Pay Hike"....hahahha

The answers sound nice in theory but I doubt it is strictly practised in action.

These are standard PR answers from Civil Service Hotline.

We need Davinder Singh(Lawyer who dig out NKF) to dig the truth behind the PSD answers.

[satayxp]

Does anyone expect the PSD to disagree with the ministers? What a sick poor joke of a govt this is.

[The_Republic]

The meaning of iron rice bowl is best reflected by the close group of ministers excluding PAP MPs. They have the best job security in the world.

=========================================================
http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:f445195c9b2b1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD


April 3, 2007

The flip side of high Civil Service pay

WHILE it is important to have good and honest top civil servants and ministers, there may be a flip side to the continued large increments in their salaries that seem to be necessary to retain them.

Firstly, there may be a secret pool of potential entrepreneurs among our top civil servants and ministers. By paying them so highly, we may be inhibiting them from striking out to start their own businesses.

Secondly, by making the pay so attractive, we will inadvertently encourage our top scholars and other young talent to make the Civil Service their career choice. Surely, we do not want to propagate a system similar to that in ancient China when top scholars vied with each other in the imperial exams in order to join the civil service. This may be the reason why China continues to trail the West in technological innovation. What we need instead is to cultivate a culture of enterprise among our best brains so that they can create high-tech businesses that in turn will provide jobs, by making the Civil Service less attractive than private enterprise, as in the West.

Finally, by saying that we need to pay top dollar for top talent, we are saying that certain people are indispensable. This may breed complacency. In truth, nobody is indispensable and if more people knew that their services were dispensable, more of them would be on their toes.

Top civil servants should also be rotated between ministries every five years or so in order to bring in a fresh perspective. If they are not satisfied with their pay or their jobs and wish to leave, let them go. We can always bring in cheaper and perhaps better foreign talent. After all, some of our first-generation ministers were not originally from Singapore and yet they served us well.

It is true that one of the reasons why Singapore's Civil Service is free of corruption is the high pay enjoyed by top civil servants and ministers. However, a balance must be struck between paying enough and paying too much.

Top civil servants must also be made to realise that the attraction of work in the Civil Service does not lie in remuneration. Rather, the attraction should lie in the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of the country and its people, to 'make a difference'.

Dr Anne Chong Su Yan





MAKING A DIFFERENCE

The attraction of work in the Civil Service should lie in the opportunity to 'make a difference'.

[Tuakong]

The MIW are 'deaf' to our feedback. At most, it's selective listening....
The Q&A from PSD is the std packaged response. Dont waste time on it.

[redtea]

.. I also lose respect for those ministers and civil servants who may not agree with the proposal but keep quiet about it anyway.Who will say no to more pay?

[alvinaloy]

The more I think and discuss about this issue, the less respect I have for those ministers who support the pay increase proposal. I also lose respect for those ministers and civil servants who may not agree with the proposal but keep quiet about it anyway.
There's more than 1 way to kill a cow. Not making a big hoo haa like what CSJ does doesn't mean that they don't want to do anything about it. It is easier to bring change about if you slowly nudge and tweak it rather than outright opposition and rebellion.

[Krug]

The salaries of Singapore's ministers and top civil servants have fallen to 55 per cent of the benchmark compared to private sector, and they should be earning $2.2 million, according to the Public Service Division.

oh wow what logic. Who can argue with that??

[satayxp]

On question no one seems to ask, "why is it the ministers need so much money? What are they spending on? Where is their money going to."

[origin05]

well ........... till the next election comes. see who i'll vote. :s22:

[pete98]

Times like these makes you wonder about the IQ and EQ level of Singapore government. Just recently so many people voicing out concern about growing standard of living in Singapore especially with the impending increment of the GST. And also how much the gap between the rich and poor is widening. But for some reason the Minister feels that now is the right time to voice out a need to increase their wage which is among the highest in the world. And the amount of increment is not just a few thousand dollars its much more. This clearly shows how how much concern they have over the public interest and their own.

Feel their love :s13: all you PAP bootlickers.

[lobo76]

Times like these makes you wonder about the IQ and EQ level of Singapore government. Just recently so many people voicing out concern about growing standard of living in Singapore especially with the impending increment of the GST. And also how much the gap between the rich and poor is widening. But for some reason the Minister feels that now is the right time to voice out a need to increase their wage which is among the highest in the world. And the amount of increment is not just a few thousand dollars its much more. This clearly shows how how much concern they have over the public interest and their own.

Feel their love :s13: all you PAP bootlickers.

It shows that they have exceptionally high IQ. They know that whatever salary hike they set, we can do nothing about it, so equals no consequences. EQ they don't care, as long as they have the money.

[satayxp]

well ........... till the next election comes. see who i'll vote. :s22:

you mean in GE06 u voted for PAP??? :s27:

[TheoDR]

Times like these makes you wonder about the IQ and EQ level of Singapore government. Just recently so many people voicing out concern about growing standard of living in Singapore especially with the impending increment of the GST. And also how much the gap between the rich and poor is widening. But for some reason the Minister feels that now is the right time to voice out a need to increase their wage which is among the highest in the world. And the amount of increment is not just a few thousand dollars its much more. This clearly shows how how much concern they have over the public interest and their own.

Feel their love :s13: all you PAP bootlickers.
Killing us softly with their song... :o

[thomas00]

Do you think they care about how we feel after the election? They will care about how we feel only when the election is approaching, cos that is when our voices will be heard. But dont worry, by then singaporeans will forget about GST increase, ministars pay-rise, etc, when they start giving out freebies.

More good years ahead.

[andre999]

On question no one seems to ask, "why is it the ministers need so much money? What are they spending on? Where is their money going to."

well when is the better time to do so ....during good economy to increase GST ..and the $$$ can go to the pay rise and to close the "poor-rich" income gap. The "poor" ministers are envious of the highly paid talented "rich" workers...and what better way to close the gap is to increase ministers pay and to prevent ministers quitting from public sector.

[satayxp]

well when is the better time to do so ....during good economy to increase GST ..and the $$$ can go to the pay rise and to close the "poor-rich" income gap. The "poor" ministers are envious of the highly paid talented "rich" workers...and what better way to close the gap is to increase ministers pay and to prevent ministers quitting from public sector.

Actually benchmarking ministerial salary to top pte sector earners can also mean that there is incentive to increase the income gap instead of narrowing it ~

u know if we go on like this, i won't be surprised soon we hear them start talking about "a widening income gap is not a bad thing". :s13:
remember someone once said "retrenchment is a good thing. if there is no retrenchment i start to worry" ~

[TheoDR]

Actually benchmarking ministerial salary to top pte sector earners can also mean that there is incentive to increase the income gap instead of narrowing it ~

u know if we go on like this, i won't be surprised soon we hear them start talking about "a widening income gap is not a bad thing". :s13:
remember someone once said "retrenchment is a good thing. if there is no retrenchment i start to worry" ~
Hmm, should ministers be retrenched then? Especially since if there hasn't been any apparent ministerial retrenchments which should be a cause for worry. :o

[redtea]

Times like these makes you wonder about the IQ and EQ level of Singapore government. Just recently so many people voicing out concern about growing standard of living in Singapore especially with the impending increment of the GST. And also how much the gap between the rich and poor is widening. But for some reason the Minister feels that now is the right time to voice out a need to increase their wage which is among the highest in the world. And the amount of increment is not just a few thousand dollars its much more. This clearly shows how how much concern they have over the public interest and their own.

Feel their love :s13: all you PAP bootlickers.Good point. But they have to strike when iron is hot:

1) Now the economy in Singapore is good, but there's already some concern over the slowdown in the US. If they don't do it now, what happens if Singapore's economy eventually catches the sluggishness in the economy, which is already evident in the US?

2) The next election is still sometime away. So give the people all the pain they can bear now, instead of later.

I think they're smart, not stupid. :)

[tequila_powered]

Actually benchmarking ministerial salary to top pte sector earners can also mean that there is incentive to increase the income gap instead of narrowing it ~

Great example of possible unintended reward system. :) Especially when "doing it for the nation" no longer a prime requirement for these high office holders.

It was already argued, before the whole thing blew up, about similar reward system for Durai (raise $ numbers more pay, eventually exposed crap stuff of $ given for tinkering/fake raised $ contribution etc)

[The_Republic]

Singaporeans come first, not government.
======================================================

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/181341.asp

Still far from spoon-feeding

Government should raise PA allowance but public must do their part, too Better to give to some 'wrong' people than miss out on all the 'right' ones
Letter from Alvin Tan
Letter from Esther Tan

KUDOS to your newspaper for highlighting the issue of the Public Assistance (PA) scheme. This, in contrast to what other newspapers this weekend focused on: The amount elite earners are drawing and what industries they are working in to make that money. .

While these high flyers may well deserve their salaries, it is equally important that we, as a society, apportion our attention to those in genuine need of help and highlight to the younger generation that not everything is as rosy as the overall economic picture seems. .

There are a myriad of reasons why the needy are doing less well — structural economic changes, personal problems, et cetera. It is difficult for the Government to address the PA issue in a way that is equally fair to everyone. Thus, there is the conundrum: Should financial assistance be increased, or should it be capped to prevent the development of a crutch mentality? .

There is no easy way out. .
Volunteers and grassroots organisations will have to reach out to ensure those who need help are given the help, and those who do not are filtered out. .

But policy implementation is effective only at the micro level. The larger community must also contribute — in kind, time or money — and this is where an awareness of such issues among the general population becomes essential. .

The situation on the ground is dire. The PA allowance of $290 allows for only a bare subsistence and does not stretch to transport to medical facilities, which is a common requirement for its recipients. .

While the Government can help by increasing the PA amount, the rest of us must also open our hearts and offer our time, energy and money to give those who truly and genuinely are in need of a helping hand. .

What is important is not what we should be earning and what industries we need to work in to make more money, but how we should serve and where should we go to serve. .

Another solution to the problem of inadequate allowances may be to set up a common retirement village. .

Government or charity trusts could look into such a concept. This would help target those in real need of help, filter out those who are not and provide residents with the benefits of economies of scale for basic necessities. .
Such a place would also provide a community of care, companionship and medical assistance for the needy. .

Granted, there may be resistance from those who insist on maintaining their independent lifestyles, but as many residents in rental flats do not get along with one another, this could provide a welcome alternative. .
I DOUBT that increasing Government help will decrease our society's level of compassion. Compassion is when you stop asking the question: "What's in it for us?" and "Why can't someone else give?" .

The monthly allowance of $290 is hardly adequate in a "First World country". An elderly person may not starve to death on that but certainly, he or she will have a difficult time. .

These people will spend their last years not being able to share in the success of their country. .

Some may have spent the better part of their lives struggling — only to be told in their twilight years that they cannot even enjoy a plate of duck whenever they like, because it is considered not "living within their means". .

It's true that you cannot satisfy everyone and that you cannot know who deserves what and how much. Yet, it is not for anyone to pass judgment. If we spend too much effort being overly-practical and worrying about giving to the "wrong" people, we will most certainly miss out on giving to the "right" ones. .

It is not easy to do what is fair, but I think that in Singapore's case, there is still room for improvement.

[The_Republic]

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:b56b490d298b1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175637958042 (http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:b56b490d298b1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175637958042)

April 4, 2007

Pay at 2/3 benchmark but remove pension

AS PART of ministerial remuneration, the pension scheme seems to be a tad generous.

Half of a minister's last-drawn salary (albeit lower, based on 1994 levels) is still quite significant and substantial. Assuming a minister starts around his mid-40s and serves eight years, he would be in his mid-50s when he retires. Given our lifespan of 75 to 85 years, the pension will then be enjoyed for a duration of more than 20 years.

If the last-drawn annual salary is roughly a million, it would work out to be about $10 million. Not bad for eight years of work, and not forgetting that the minister who quits can still embark on a private career.

The pension scheme also seems to be an anachronism. In the past civil servants and ministers were paid a pittance, hence the pension-compensated remuneration.

Today their pay is measured against that in the private sector, so why the need for a compensating pension? After all, top earners in the private sector do not enjoy a similar pension.

So, pay them their two-third benchmark but remove the pension.

Chang Wei Meng

[The_Republic]

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:857170ada67b1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD



April 4, 2007

Serving the nation - altruistically

IT MAY appear pointless trying to expound on an issue that has already been decided upon and I risk being politically incorrect.

However, there is a groundswell of opinion that is against the proposed near-doubling of the politicians' remuneration package and I sincerely feel that this overwhelming opinion of the people should not be neglected nor overlooked.

It is regrettable that the Government is not able to persuade our ablest and best to serve the people on the basis of public service. Instead it seems that the only way to secure these loyalties is the time-honoured method - financial compensation.

Idealism in any form seems dead and buried in Singapore and pragmatism and 'looking after oneself' is touted to be the name of the new game.

None of us expect our political leaders to serve us for free, neither do we want them to be tempted to line their pockets with ill-gotten gains like corrupt Third World politicians that we hear about almost ad nauseum.

But no right-thinking person looking at the present salary-scale of our ministers will likely feel that they are hard done by. In fact, if I am not wrong, our politicians get many times the salaries of First World politicians.

To me, the crux of the matter is this.

To most Singaporeans, $1 million a year is a princely sum, even for our political leaders. Also, the ministers will have the satisfaction of knowing that they are serving their nation and when they have done their part and stepped down from the stage, they will be remembered by all as having honourably served their country in a time of need.

However, if for whatever reason, any minister should feel that this is insufficient and that he deserves much more (and I am not saying that this is wrong), then perhaps he should offer his services to organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In this way Singapore will not deprive the world of such exceptional talents and, who knows, Singapore may even have a hand in helping to rid the world of perennial scourges such as poverty and disease.

A win-win situation may then emerge where we have contented people serving the wider world in an organisation where they best fit.

Dr Huang Shoou Chyuan

[The_Republic]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=136629.1

Hi all,
I am pleased to present NSP's Press Release on Ministerial Salary Hike. (Sorry, used the wrong title...)

Ministerial Salary Hike ?Please Don抰 Leave Workers Behind

The NSP shares the people抯 displeasure over the latest campaign by the PAP government to justify salary hike for the civil servants. The government should not think that the common people would not understand the implication that the hike will invariably translate to even higher salaries for the Ministers. Such an assumption would be highly insulting to the people.

The NSP does not disagree with the fundamental principle that career civil servants should receive just rewards for their useful contributions to the public. However, as officeholders elected by the public, it is wrong for Ministers to demand salaries far higher than the non-elective state employees. Furthermore, it is inadmissible to rigidly peg Ministerial salary benchmarks to the highest earners in the private sector instead of pegging to the Ministers?measurable performance.

Even without more salary increment, the Ministers are by no means short-changed. Ministers (as well as Parliamentary Secretaries and Speakers of the House) are eligible for pension after 8-years of service in their respective offices. Ministers also continue to draw a ministerial salary even as they are cashing in their pension. And with a salary that would effortlessly qualify them for the small exclusive segment of multi-millionaires of the country for which there are less than 2%, there is little reasons for Ministers to think they are underpaid.

The Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Swee Say recently commented that pay hike for Ministers will benefit workers. Regrettably, he did not clarify that the pay hike will mainly contribute to the widening of the gap between the median wage (the wage below which 50% of the workers are earning) and the average wage, a figure skewed higher by having more high-earners. Moreover, workers have to brave hikes in GST, public transport, electricity, and postal services, while Ministers 憌eather?a hike in their salary. The NSP believes that the formula for Ministerial salary must factor in the wage disparity between the low and high earners, as well as the structural unemployment rate. We further believe that the formula must be made transparent to the public.

The NSP further questions the logic of Senior Parliamentary Secretary Amy Khor that other countries with low reported salaries for their Ministers would not have a good, clean, and efficient government. We believe the availability of examples like Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland (which the Singapore government had wanted to emulate) exposes the flawed argument that the progress of a country depends on highly-paid Ministers who demand ever more.

Ultimately, we will like to remind the PAP government that the money to fund the salary hike does not descend from the heavens, and will unavoidably result in higher taxes, fees, charges, and levies for the common people, if the country抯 reserves are not to be compromised.

In conclusion, the NSP is unconvinced that inflationary salary increment for Ministers is justified. It is morally abhorrent for the PAP government to attempt to misguide the nation into believing that the value of the highest elected public offices of a country is measured principally by the amount of remuneration that is paid to the Ministers. We do not welcome the development where the Singapore government is increasingly opined by the public as 憄olitical mercenaries?

We believe that the disquiet from the ordinary citizens warrants the matter to be put to a national referendum. The PAP Ministers should also candidly state to Singapore voters during all future General Elections the price of their service which the nation is expected to pay (if they are elected), so as to accord voters the opportunity to fairly assess their choices.

The NSP respects the frequent proclamation by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong that his government will 搇eave no one behind? But with another Ministerial salary hike, almost everyone will be left far behind.

Central Executive Council
National Solidarity Party

[fi5hbone]

Thanks The Republic for posting up the updates.

Anyway, anyone wants to do a run down of the contributions our ministers made to our 'bustling' economy?

[Crooni]

Saw mmlee last night on ch 5 news or cna (can't remember) in australia justifying their pay. One of the reasons he gave was that if their pay isn't high, it will not attract the "best", and incompetent people would be running the country costing BILLIONS (he really emphasized on the B word). I don't know whether to laugh or cry upon hearing that, probably just disgusted by that statement.

They are already costing us billions in shin corp, optus, etc. How would they still use that reason...

[superman]

Thanks The Republic for posting up the updates.

Anyway, anyone wants to do a run down of the contributions our ministers made to our 'bustling' economy?

Ya, GST, COE and ERP. Collect alot of money for our reserves, u know. :s8:

[The_Republic]

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=6fadbe120b93a010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:52d2bbc860db1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD


April 5, 2007
MINISTERIAL PAY:
Be mindful of the affective gap

I HAVE followed with intense interest the current debate on increasing ministerial salaries to match those of the highest earners in the private sector. And I have noted the impassioned arguments from both sides: the Government insisting on its necessity if top talent is to be recruited to ensure good leadership, and the public expressing its reservations, doubts and unhappiness.

I would like to go beyond the emotion and the rhetoric, and see the issue in the larger context of the PAP model of governance, in particular its special brand of pragmatism in solving problems. It is a hard-boiled pragmatism which even the severest critic will concede has contributed greatly to the Singapore success story. And one which, paradoxically, even the strongest supporter will concede is liable to harden into inflexibility.

In the case of ministerial salaries, the PAP leaders' thinking seems to have gone along these lines: Singapore needs a good, strong government if it is to prosper or even survive. Hence, it needs to recruit top talent. Since there is competition for this from the private sector, it has to offer equally attractive salaries. It has to act quickly and decisively, otherwise the country will face a serious crisis of leadership, which can occur in three increasingly dangerous stages:

<LI>Talented people will not be attracted to government service.

<LI>Even if they are, they will soon be enticed away by the private sector.

<LI>But even if they are not enticed away, they will resort to corruption as compensation for their inadequate salaries, and thus bring ruin to society.

Rounding up the austere dialectic is the urgent plea to doubting Singaporeans: Do you want Singapore to go the way of corrupt societies?

I would like to point out, respectfully, a basic flaw in this rationale. In keeping with the overall, hard-nosed realpolitik that has characterised PAP rule, it fails to take into account the affective factor that is present in any relationship, whether between individuals or ruler and ruled.

This factor comprises that special constellation of emotions, moods, attitudes and ideals which somehow elude being quantified and reduced to monetary terms. I first analysed its role in the relationship between the PAP Government and the people over a decade ago in a political commentary titled The Great Affective Divide, noting the emergence of a serious emotional estrangement despite the country's stability and prosperity.

Subsequently, I variously described the conflict in terms of the people's wish to see a greater role for Heart as opposed to Head, EQ as opposed to IQ, Heartware as opposed to Hardware, etc.

The policy regarding ministerial salaries illustrates this conflict. Its definition of the talent that is eagerly sought as ministerial material does not appear to take into account attributes beyond those of intellect. It assumes that what is good for the corporate world must be good for government, and that therefore there is a common target of talent out there, which both will compete fiercely for.

But in reality, the commonality of talent is only in those attributes of mind and personality such as great intelligence, far-sightedness, boldness of vision, creativity, determination of purpose, etc, that are the hallmarks of today's high achiever. Beyond this overlap, the emotional aspect comes into play.

And here, there is a dramatic parting of ways. For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite - raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.

Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material. To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains.

Next, the rationale goes against the very spirit of the social contract that it is supposed to protect. There is a compact, largely implicit, that governs the government-people relationship in every mature society in the free world, and it has as much to do with what is felt deeply in the heart as with what is worked out logically in the head.

By this compact, political leadership is less a salaried job and more a vocation, with all that this implies of selflessness and sacrifice on the part of the leaders, and trust, respect and regard on the part of the people. It is this reciprocity that defines a social compact and confers upon it a sort of sacrosanct quality. The ultimate reward for the leaders, whether or not they consciously seek it, is a revered place in the nation's history, in the hearts and minds of future generations. Hence, material reward is only secondary.

Nevertheless, no Singaporean with any practical sense of the real world would want to see a minister denied a salary commensurate with his status and dignity, or living less well than any prosperous Singaporean. If the average Singaporean still aspires to the famous '5Cs' representing the good life, he is only too happy to see a minister already well in possession of these.

But, at the same time, no Singaporean would expect a minister to feel disgruntled if he is paid less than the top CEO. If the disgruntlement actually causes him to leave his job, then he was not cut out for public office in the first place. Thus, to offer him a matching salary to enable him to stay would be to demean that office.

There is clearly a need to balance material needs and public service. The balance, in the view of many Singaporeans, has already been achieved with the existing ministerial salaries, if benchmarked against those of high-earners across a broad range of professions, and also against the salaries of ministers in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand, consistently ranked among the foremost, corruption-free democracies in the world.

The policy of increasing ministerial salaries may have the effect of upsetting this balance and, more seriously, doing away altogether with the compact of trust and respect. It will create a new affective divide, or reinforce any existing one, between the government and the people, and reduce their relationship to a purely impersonal business contract.

Even in a society often described as aggressively materialistic and coldly efficient, there are, fortunately, Singaporeans who believe idealism has a place, and that the fire, passion and commitment of the Old Guard, who saw Singapore through the difficult early years with little hope of financial reward, are still alive in some young Singaporeans.

The policy on ministerial salaries will, at the least, breed weary resignation in Singaporeans: What's the use of giving one's views at all? And, at the worst, give rise to toxic cynicism: What's the use of teaching our young such values as caring and selflessness and sacrifice if each carries a price tag?

Catherine Lim is a freelance writer.

[satayxp]

PAP's answer to the affective gap is to dance hip hop ~ :D

[alvinaloy]

Extremely well written letter by Catherine Lim. I would expect no less. Able to articulate most of the thoughts and feelings of the local populace.

[redtea]

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=6fadbe120b93a010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:52d2bbc860db1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD


April 5, 2007
MINISTERIAL PAY:
Be mindful of the affective gap

I HAVE followed with intense interest the current debate on increasing ministerial salaries to match those of the highest earners in the private sector. And I have noted the impassioned arguments from both sides: the Government insisting on its necessity if top talent is to be recruited to ensure good leadership, and the public expressing its reservations, doubts and unhappiness.

....

Catherine Lim is a freelance writer.Is this the same catherine lim as in 林宝音?
I luv catherine lim.

[Racers85]

if i see minister buying something then we can charge them more loh. as simple as that. no need to give discount.

why. becos minister need to be best talent and to ensure best food is given to them, we need to increase the quality of the food if not the best food will got to pirvate sector. :s22:

tat should keep the balance in place ba... :s13:

[alvinaloy]

if i see minister buying something then we can charge them more loh. as simple as that. no need to give discount.

why. becos minister need to be best talent and to ensure best food is given to them, we need to increase the quality of the food if not the best food will got to pirvate sector. :s22:

tat should keep the balance in place ba... :s13:
Then wait they say cost of living has gone up liao and their salaries hasn't risen to match and then have another excuse to increase their salary, then how? :s13:

[The_Republic]

This Howard Lee went straight into PAP and Media's heart

================================================
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/181554.asp


Pressing questions and the news
Do we wait for a change of policy before our reporters become actual journalists?

Letter from Howard Lee

I refer to Mr Loh Chee Kong's I Say, "Inform, educate, entertain … expose?" (April 2), in which he referred to Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's comments at the recent Foreign Correspondents Association talk on one of the roles of the media being to expose Government wrongdoings. .

If you think Dr Balakrishnan was the first leader in Singapore to make such comments, think again. President S R Nathan, in an exclusive interview with Today on Aug 24, 2005, his first after he was re-elected President, had noted that the media has a role to play in "uncovering failings in the system". .

"If there are skeletons in the cupboard, do not hesitate to bring them out," he said. .
Then, when I read the President's comments, my sense of guarded expectation was not unlike Mr Loh's, when he heard what Dr Balakrishnan said. .
Would the media take up the gauntlet and press ahead with a more enquiring stand when it comes to news reporting? .

Less than two years on, nothing much seems to have changed. Indeed, given the controversy that surrounded the start of the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) case in 2005, you might have expected news reporting in Singapore to boldly take us where our media has never gone before, into the uncharted territory of investigative journalism. .

However, if the words of the President himself did little to jumpstart this, it is of little surprise that Mr Loh remains sceptical that the words of the possibly-soon-to-be Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts would result in a change of policy that would make a dent. .

But is the state of journalism in Singapore so entrenched in the old Singapore Broadcasting Corporation's charter, the bottomline pressures faced by editors so insurmountable, the chance of finding a speck of dirt on the People's Action Party's snowy-white veneer so impossible, or even the threat of defamation suits so menacing, that investigative journalism should be written off as unlikely, uneconomical, unnecessary or suicidal, respectively? .

Perhaps the more pressing question is: Do we need to wait for a change in policy before our reporters become actual journalists? .

To begin with, too many people associate investigative journalism with exposés. If that were so, then the scooter-riding photographers who chased down Princess Diana would all be labelled investigative journalists, not paparazzi. It is the act of investigation, of asking even the most pressing, disturbing and annoying questions to get to the bottom of the matter, which sets investigative journalism apart. .

Singapore's media players have taken great pride in a long tradition of accountability, sticking to the truth instead of resorting to sensationalising news to make an erotic dollar. .

However, our media cannot claim to be accountable — only accurate — to the tee, by following every single detail on a cookie-cutter press release. .

Only by asking the difficult questions that would propagate a more discerning public, or perhaps lend voice to an already-discerning public, would the media force those who want public buy-in into their programmes and policies to reveal every detail that has a likely impact on the same public. .

Indeed, this renewed and purposeful loyalty to its readership can only mean more business for media players, as greater trust is built between the news and the reader, who can see their desires and feelings reflected and championed by the media. .

If Singapore's media players are still holding on to their ancient standard of informing, educating and entertaining the public, they would probably realise that "education" and "engagement" today have blurred lines. Even the Education Ministry might testify to that. .

And while we all hope for a clean government for Singapore forever, might we or even the PAP be caught unprepared by the slow seduction of corruption? If no amount of policy or praying can guarantee that politicians remain clean, as historically played out in many countries, then our best bet must be a discerning public, hopefully supported by a querying media. Beyond holding hints of an errant government accountable to the people, a querying media would also be a bane to future old-NKFs who would think twice about trying their tricks. .

Should we wait for a policy change for all this to happen? .
It is for the media players to decide. While it would be ideal to have media policies and laws that empowered journalists, rather than let them "be told how to behave" by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (in last year's TV forum, Why My Vote Matters), our media companies should remember that all this actually took a fledging start seven years ago, when a tabloid called Project Eyeball pressed the boundaries with the current set of regulations that we, more or less, already have. .

Our reporters should note that it is of greater importance, to themselves and the public, that they start getting in touch with their inner questioning child and make more sense of the news, rather than wait for things to happen.

[Wzierbovsky]

Great article by Dr. Lim; measured and reasonable.



April 5, 2007
MINISTERIAL PAY:
Be mindful of the affective gap

Catherine Lim is a freelance writer.

[redtea]

Any chance of catherine lim joining politics? I'd vote for her if she stands for my constituent.

[The_Republic]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=136137.1

In reality, some of the mini-stars may be receving up to 2M per annual (including pensions) if they are above 55 years old. This is not mention by LHL and the papers.





Ministers get pensions too





http://www.yawningbread.org/images/flicred.gif The Parliamentary Pensions Act is worth a read. Despite its name, it doesn't now appear to provide pensions for any members of parliament after 1995. However, it does provide pensions "in respect of service as Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker, Ministers and other office-holders." The computational formula is quite complex, based on the number of years of service, up to a maximum of "two-thirds of the highest annual salary of any office held by him." On 15 June 2004, Steve Chia, then a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, raised this question in the chamber.





My thanks to a reader who brought this issue up in a private email. I have spent the weekend digging out the exchange in Parliament that confirms what he remembered reading a few years back.



8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.


The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them.

As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers.

Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.




Having a pension scheme for senior civil servants, as an incentive to permanence, may be understandable, but the same reasoning does not extend to political appointments. The expectation should be that political office-holders come and go, from alternating political parties. It is precisely because of the changeability of political office-holders in a democracy that there is a need for a stable, permanent civil service that can retain experience and institutional memory. That is why the senior-most civil servant in a ministry is titled "Permanent Secretary". He is supposed to be permanent when the minister is expected not to be. That being the case, why should political appointees enjoy the permanence-inducing pension scheme?






Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers' money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers' money until they die. Am I right to say this?


Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take the lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount.

The Member's implicit question is are the ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.









Lee doesn't actually answer Chia's question




Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?


Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the ministers follow the civil service rules.

(Source: Parliamentary Debates, 2004)







This may be the "rule", but is it morally right?"




Steve Chia was referring to Section 5 of the Parliamentary Pensions Act, which says,5. ­ (1) Where an office-holding Member has ­



(a) not less than 8 years?reckonable service as an office-holding Member (whether continuously or not);


(b) attained the age of 55 years; and

(c) not previously been granted a pension under section 4,


he may be granted a pension under that section notwithstanding the fact that he has not ceased to hold office.





As at 31 March 2007, the following office holders, of cabinet level or equivalent, were 55 years or older:

NameOfficeYear of birth
Lee Kuan YewMinister Mentor1923S
JayakumarDeputy Prime Minister
1939Goh Chok TongSenior Minister
1941Abdullah TarmugiSpeaker of Parliament
1944Wong Kan SengDeputy Prime Minister
1946Lee Boon YangMinister for Information, Communication and the Arts
1947Mah Bow TanMinister for National Development
1948Lee Hsien LoongPrime MinisterFeb 1952
(Source: Parliament website)

By the end of 2007, Khaw Boon Wan, the Minister for Health will also have turned 55.

Two cabinet ministers did not state their dates of birth on their government website CVs. They are Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the Education Minister and Lim Boon Heng, the Minister without Portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office. The latter's CV, however, mentioned that he obtained his bachelor's degree in 1970. This suggests that he was born before 1950, which would make him above 55 years old at this time. http://www.yawningbread.org/images/bar_red.gif

?Yawning Bread

[The_Republic]

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=136773.9

Sylvia Lim has actualyl spoken on the ministerial salary issue - only recently, in fact. It was reported in the Straits Times. (of course, we don't expect the ST to report everything she says.) But this is what the ST quoted her as saying:



"It reflects how the Government is not concerned about running roughshod over the anxieties of the general public over the impending GST hike and rising fees in polyclinics and hospitals.

"Practically in the same breath, Singaporeans are told to be happy with a few dollars more a month under Workfare, while their leaders' salaries need to go up from $100,000 monthly to as much as $180,000."

"In the public sector, national policies and directions are set. What happens when policies fail? How often do ministers get stripped of their positions or lose post-public-sector benefits?"

- Sylvia Lim.

Straits Times, Mrach 24, 2007 , " New Round Of Pay Hikes, New Round Of Debates".

[The_Republic]

MM Lee calls Singaporeans who oppose pay hike as absurd. He is getting personal. Looks like everyone must agree with him or else he might cry.

The most people jump for only a few hundred dollars. He must jump by 1 million.

First World indeed.

======================================================

Thursday April 5, 2:35 PM (http://sg.rd.yahoo.com/partners/reuters/SIG=112kft22t/*http%3A//www.online.reuters.com/)FEATURE-Singapore ministers set for million-dollar pay hike

By Koh Gui Qing

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070405/3/47ndo.html

SINGAPORE, April 5 (Reuters) - The salary of the prime minister of Singapore is more than three times that of U.S. President George Bush and about four times that of Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. But that is not enough.


Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may soon be getting a hefty pay rise as part of a controversial ministerial salary hike that has infuriated many Singaporeans.

Lee, who is estimated to earn about S$2 million (US$1.32 million) per year, said last month that the salaries of Singapore ministers, top public officials and judges have fallen way below benchmark private sector salaries and may need to be doubled.

"It is critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people," Lee said in a speech in March.

Lee said that Singapore ministers, who currently earn about S$1.2 million (US$800,000) a year, should be earning S$2.2 million (US$1.45 million). Details of the new ministerial salaries will be announced in parliament on April 9.

Since 1994, the salaries of Singapore ministers have been set at two-thirds the median pay of the 48 best-paid bankers, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and executives in multi-nationals and manufacturing firms.

But the latest salary hike, which comes at a time when income disparity in Singapore is wider than ever, has sparked an outpour of unusually blunt criticism from Singaporeans.

Hundreds have signed an online petition and the readers' letter columns of the state-controlled newspapers -- one of the few outlets for dissenting views in the city-state -- have published a series of letters protesting the planned hike.

"GOVERNMENT ALWAYS WINS"

Some Singaporeans argue that the six lucrative professions on which ministers' salaries are based do not reflect the country's economy or the government's performance.

"No matter what happens to the economy, the government always wins because it takes only the best results," Jacob Tan said in a letter to the Straits Times.

And given that a 2 percentage point rise in sales tax from July will further hit the poor, some said the government plan is tactless.

"I am rather disappointed with the government's insensitivity," reader Vanessa Teo said.

But the sharpest criticism was online. The "awesome raise on top of their already obscene pay is completely unjustifiable," read an online petition that has gathered 304 signatures.

Given the rare public outcry, analysts said the government may now hesitate to raise salaries by the full S$1 million.

"I would be surprised if they implemented the full formula that would give them over S$2 million," said Garry Rodan, director of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University.

The government defends the high salaries as necessary to attract the brightest people and to prevent corruption.

"If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week.

Singapore government officials' salaries are set by different wage formulas, depending on their seniority. The figures are not readily available to the public, but the prime minister earned S$1.94 million in 2000, according to the Straits Times.

Ministers' wages were last raised in 2000, but were cut in 2001 and 2003 during the economic downturn, although the cuts have since been reversed, the Public Service Division said.

"ABLE GENERALS"

Some argue that Singapore ministers are not overpaid, but that ministers elsewhere are underpaid.

Singapore is an oasis of wealth, peace and law and order in a region rife with poverty, violence and corruption.

The island state is Asia's second-richest country after Japan, with a gross domestic product per capita of about $31,000.

The World Economic Forum ranks Singapore as the fifth-most competitive of 125 economies in 2006, while Transparency International said the city-state was the fifth-most corruption-free nation out of 163. Isn't that worth a price?

"According to a Chinese proverb, an able general is worth more than 10,000 foot soldiers. So too is the worth of our leaders if they have the wisdom to help us weather global competition," reader Yik Keng Yeong said.

But critics say that the prosperity and security enjoyed by Singaporeans are not that different from other Asian first-world economies such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan, where government ministers do not command such high salaries.

Finland, for instance, beat Singapore in the WEF and Transparency International polls -- as second-most competitive and most corruption-free country -- but its Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen earns about a sixth of Lee's estimated salary.

What irks Singapore's opposition parties is that the million-dollar salaries are only accessible to members of Lee's ruling People's Action Party. Opposition politicians have been crippled by defamation lawsuits brought by government ministers and no opposition party has ever held a ministerial post.

The opposition also argues that a million-dollar pay hike is unwarranted for leaders of a country that has no legal minimum wage and where 20 percent of the population earns an average monthly salary of S$1,500 ($991).

But Lee Kuan Yew -- modern Singapore's first prime minister, who is still the leading voice in his son's cabinet -- will have none of it.

"The cure to all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government," Lee senior told the Straits Times on Thursday, adding that it is "absurd" for Singaporeans to quarrel about ministerial pay and warning that Singapore would suffer it the government could not pay competitive salaries. "Your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries," he said. (Additional reporting by Sakari Suoninen in Helsinki, Isabel Reynolds in Tokyo, Joanne Allen in Washington)

[pete98]

If he step down immediately as MM I will immediately support the increment. I'm so sick of his constant threat of incompetent gov.

[redtea]

The government defends the high salaries as necessary to attract the brightest people and to prevent corruption.

"If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week.

Everytime I read that Minister's quote, I have to read it again to make sure I didn't mis-read it. Isn't it an insult to all civil servants and his fellow-ministers to say things like that? Are they that corruptible?

[TheoDR]

Everytime I read that Minister's quote, I have to read it again to make sure I didn't mis-read it. Isn't it an insult to all civil servants and his fellow-ministers to say things like that? Are they that corruptible?
If they will turn corrupt without having that obscene amount of money, then I say they should not even be ministers nor considered as ministers as well, since they're in it not for passion of serving the country, but for passion of the money and serving their own gain. :alien:

[redtea]

If they will turn corrupt without having that obscene amount of money, then I say they should not even be ministers nor considered as ministers as well, since they're in it not for passion of serving the country, but for passion of the money and serving their own gain. :alien:Yep, he's also throwing our education system and the efficacy of our legal system into question.

[XiaoJinLing]

I hope that he (n maybe his son too) quickly step down lah.......

aiya even if singapore growth slow down or wat i tink it is better... this small country move too fast .. cant breathe... this increase that also increase but pay no increase... bery sianz ... probably better if we do not hv the best, no lift upgrading never mind no pretty green environment never mind ... standard of living dropped lttle oso never mind lah ...at least got money in the pocket lor..... sigh...

why mus he mus things so difficult for us? they do this type of things make me so sianz even who is the gov now oso no difference la....all think of $$$ only

[adesignforlife]

no end to greed. :)

[XiaoJinLing]

Make me tink of the chinese term "tan guan wu li" in open .... taxed commoners and increase their own pay jus anyhow... (gua ming zi ming gao)

already left nothing much for them to squeese liao really ...

[Rogue]

Just issue them Singapore stock options, every 5 year term, allow them to cash out. Monetary returns based on the difference on Singapore's economy performance.

Yeah that's the ticket.

[zeq]

I am surprised such a statement will come from MM. So with more money, there will be less corruption. Where is their pride and integrity to serve the country? As singaporeans, we want ministers who want to help Singapore to grow. But the statement suggests that his ministers are easily swayed by the power of money. Degrading. :s31:

[The_Republic]

I am surprised such a statement will come from MM. So with more money, there will be less corruption. Where is their pride and integrity to serve the country? As singaporeans, we want ministers who want to help Singapore to grow. But the statement suggests that his ministers are easily swayed by the power of money. Degrading. :s31:

If they stay and leave MAINLY because of MONEY, then I think there is more chances Ministers who accept this reason will be corrupt because there is always more money to be make elsewhere.

[The_Republic]

This writer is quite naive. The PAP never had any history of consulting the public on any major decisions for 4 decades. But at least he dare to write to the media expressing his views.

The answer to his question will be NO because it is a waste of time,effort and money.


=====================================================
http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:1d081608c22c1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175810836554

April 6, 2007

Ministers' salary increase: Can it be delayed until there is more public consultation?

THE views expressed so far on this difficult issue rightly deserve attention, even as Singaporeans await the Government's presentation of its case in Parliament next week.

Given the unhappiness, it is hoped that the Government will do more to soothe this feeling during the Parliament sitting, and address this issue beyond the offer of relevant statistics and other pragmatic arguments.

This issue is not new. So too the attendant shock that many Singaporeans react to when this pay scheme was publicly goaded in the early 1990s and hotly debated in Parliament in 1995.

Let us recap the two sides of the argument. To the Government, we are fooling ourselves if we want to lure top talents but refuse to pay them top salaries, and that moral counter-points must give way to pragmatic ones.

The cost of living, the competitiveness of the market place in a global economy, the high standards of integrity and performance expected of ministers and the equally high cost to their private lives are imperatives that must be taken into account.

MM Lee even once argued that 'moral values on pay are good only for textbooks on socialism and political tracts on social justice'.

However, to many Singaporeans, other factors must be given consideration. To begin with, is it right to compare jobs in the public and private sectors since there are obvious fundamental differences between the two?

Secondly, while many have no problem with raising ministerial salaries as a matter of principle, the quantum of the raise seems to be unduly high, making our Cabinet ministers among the most highly paid in the world.

Thirdly, while we must credit the political leadership for securing Singapore a sterling economic position in the world - our Republic's GDP growth rate and foreign reserves are among the highest in the world - such a remarkable achievement could not have been attained without the contributions and sacrifices of an equally productive workforce.

Finally, this increase of ministerial salaries may convey the wrong signal that money is actually the bottomline, even in such a nationally important issue of political contribution and service.

What about other redeeming intangibles such as honour and sense of duty, dedication, passion and commitment, loyalty and service?

It may be difficult for many to believe that the talent pool is so small and that the able are so money-minded that the best way to get them to come forward is to give them more money.

Hopefully, the Government will do more to appease this unhappiness. What about delaying this proposed increase until more public consultation is done and a better way of compensating the ministers and senior civil servants be found?

Otherwise, many Singaporeans will feel the sheer helplessness that however unhappy they are about matters that are close to their hearts they will have little chance to be redressed, both outside Parliament and inside - and this is not good for Singapore's future. Dr Hussin Mutalib

[The_Republic]

Why is the Competition Act not covering the area of Politics ??

====================================================

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:3c6a4252612c1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD (http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=f832758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:3c6a4252612c1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD)

April 6, 2007


Competition Act should exclude medical services

I READ with dismay that the SMA is withdrawing fee guidelines for doctors as the guide could be in contravention of the recently enacted competition code, 'Private docs can set own fees as SMA drops guidelines' (ST, April 3).

Competition is not an ends in itself. The intent of the Competition Act is to let consumers benefit from more choices, lower prices and better products and services when businesses compete. Therefore, in assessing possible restraints on competition, the Competition Commission should examine the market from the point of view of the consumer.

Would doing away with SMA guidelines promote or hinder consumers' interest? I think the latter.

Health care is not like normal goods and services, the sick cannot shop around. And for health-care providers, the quality of care does not (and should not) be affected by economic incentives.

Section 34 of the Act prohibits agreements which prevent, restrict or distort competition. I cannot see how there is an appreciable anti-competitive effect by having guidelines on doctors' fees.

It should also be noted that the fee guide was implemented to inject transparency into private medical charges. By scrapping the fee guide, is the SMA regressing on the need for transparency and, in doing so, give private doctors the liberty to overcharge?

Currently, certain activities and sectors are excluded from the Act. These include postal services, portable water, bus services, rail services, activities of 'net economic benefit' and those 'arising from exceptional or compelling reasons of public policy'. The exclusion of some of these sectors is based on public interest considerations.

It is arguably in the public interest to exempt health care from the Competition Act. At the very least, the commission should give industry-specific regulators like the SMA with their industry knowledge and expertise, the mandate to handle issues such as the guidelines on doctors' fees.

Faye Chiam Pui Hoon (Miss)

[Mayhem69]

we should employ FT ministers from Finland etc.. they do their job well and at really reasonable pay..

Why should Singapore Inc keep a much of fat cat ministers when Finland FTs can do the same job?? Finland is Ranked No 1. the least Corrupt nation.. MUCH better than SG

Did Finland ministers demand fat pays for their good job and being least corrupt?? No, but SG ministers yes.. shame shame..

[macguire]

Since 1994, the salaries of Singapore ministers have been set at two-thirds the median pay of the 48 best-paid bankers, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and executives in multi-nationals and manufacturing firms.

The government defends the high salaries as necessary to attract the brightest people and to prevent corruption.

"If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week.

isnt this already corruption? its just pure corruption made legal in the eyes of law... darn it! pegging their pay to the ctrys' top 48 best-paid bankers, lawyers, accountants, engineers, and executives in multi-nationals and manufacturing firms?? what a joke? are they trying to say they are as equally competent as these 48? did the 48 work their way up? or did they simply join the company and start earning this big bucks?

so much for democracy...*disgusted*

[kakashi84]

tis thread still going strong..

[shallowmind]

孔融讓梨 得天下贊之
礙曹得梨 則得殺之

[The_Republic]

http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:d8d7d4f9357c1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175897215697 (http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:d8d7d4f9357c1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175897215697)

April 7, 2007

Why quantum leap in salary for some?

I AGREE with Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew that top-earning professionals, like Drs Ng Eng Hen, Vivian Balakrishnan and Balaji Sadasivan, deserve a fair and equitable compensation when they join the public service ('Put ministers' pay in perspective'; ST, April 5).

But what about ministers who were not drawing million-dollar salaries prior to their career in politics? How does one justify the quantum leap in remuneration of, say, an academic from a monthly pay of $15,000 to $100,000?

The answer, of course, lies in the word 'value' - make that premium value.

And it is this aspect of the conundrum that has yet to be addressed convincingly by the Government since 1994.

Are schemes such as Workfare, ComCare and Eldershield rocket-science policies beyond the ken of decently-endowed minds to conceptualise? I don't think so.

Add the usual 'global meltdown' refrain when the economic chips are down and one can be forgiven for not having a 'sense of proportion' in supporting a pay rise for the country's leaders.

Furthermore, there are plenty of other first-class public-service providers around the world that do not cost - or charge - half as much.

Hong Kong naturally comes to mind. Its government handled the Sars outbreak equally competently and has also consistently matched, if not topped, Singapore in sound governance, good economic performance and providing a safe social environment for its citizens.

So MM Lee's reasoning that less money will necessarily lead to less competent people in the system is arguable as examples abound to prove otherwise.

I am sure Enron and Worldcom paid more than top dollar for their top executives and look where the companies are now - six feet down under.

Just as it is a fallacy to say that 'money is the root of all evil', so it is to suggest that 'money is the root of a first-class government'.

The grim reality is this: Many Singaporeans do not feel that their lives are better than it was a decade ago.

Whether it is due to the Asian financial crisis, knowledge economy, globalisation or whatever, life is getting harder.

Mohamad Rosle Ahmad

[The_Republic]

136137.49 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=136137.49) in reply to 136137.1 (http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sammyboymod&msg=136137.1) http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:647bed6ea18c1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175897215697 (http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.c2aef3d65baca16abb31f610a06310a0/?vgnextoid=7532758920e39010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:647bed6ea18c1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD:STForumArcDate:1175897215697)

April 7, 2007
OF MINISTERIAL PAY AND BAD GOVT
Why Singapore women won't have to be maids

I REFER to the recent statements to the press by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew in which he described the scenario which would happen if Singapore were to lose the People's Action Party (PAP) government leadership and be led by other less capable leaders.

I particularly take offence at the suggestion that Singaporean women would have to become maids in other countries, as this puts us in a bad light.

Much as I do not deny that we need to pay our ministers what they are worth, which is altogether another topic, I strongly suggest that this scenario does not paint a true picture of the Singapore I know.

I believe Singaporeans are made of sterner stuff than what MM Lee suggested and have the courage to overcome adversity, with or without the PAP.

If the entire Government were to resign for pay reasons, I am certain many Singaporeans with the heart and talent would step forward to take the mantle. MM Lee can rest assured of this.

The main reason Singaporeans do not want to step into politics is the negative culture and image created by the many lawsuits as well as obstacles put in the way of opposition parties.

Without a truly creative and competitive environment, the PAP will have to use other ways and means to persuade quality people to join the Government. That may be a problem created by the Government itself. Tng Kok Khim

[The_Republic]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070409/3/47pl0.html

Singapore PM to earn 5 times more than Bush

SINGAPORE, April 9 (Reuters) - Singapore's prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, will earn five times more than U.S. President George Bush this year after a pay hike on Monday boosted his annual salary to S$3.1 million ($2.05 million).


A minister told parliament on Monday that other Singapore government ministers -- who are already among the best paid in the world -- will also see their salaries jump by about 60 percent to an average of S$1.9 million ($1.26 million).

"For the public service to remain an attractive employer, our terms must keep pace with the private sector," Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is also minister in charge of the civil service, said in parliament.

The ministerial salary increase -- which will take effect in two steps by the end of next year -- is slightly smaller than the government had originally proposed.

Lee said last month the salaries of Singapore ministers and top civil servants might have to rise by as much as S$1 million ($660,000) to S$2.2 million ($1.45 million) because they had fallen way below benchmark top salaries in the private sector.

Lee's announcement sparked an outcry, with hundreds of Singaporeans signing an online petition and writing to newspapers to protest against the move.

Some Singaporeans said the ministerial salaries did not reflect the country's economy or the government's performance, adding that the government was tactless to raise ministers' salaries now given Singapore's widening income gap.

Since 1994, the salaries of Singapore ministers have been set at two-thirds the median pay of the 48 best-paid bankers, lawyers, accountants, engineers and executives in multinationals and manufacturing firms.

Under the wage revision, the bonuses that Singapore ministers receive will depend on their performance, to be assessed by Lee, and the rate of Singapore's economic growth, Teo said.

He said ministers can get a maximum "gross domestic product bonus" of four months worth of salary if the Singapore economy grows by 8 percent or more.

Lee, who is estimated to have earned S$2 million previously, will earn six times more than Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe after the pay hike. The last pay hike was in 2000.

The government has defended the salary increase as necessary to attract the brightest people and to prevent corruption.

Lee Kuan Yew, modern Singapore's first prime minister and father of Lee, told parliament on Monday that resource-poor Singapore needed an "extraordinary government" to support it. "If you fail here, you go back to a Southeast Asian situation," Lee senior said. "Just look around you."

[The_Republic]

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/182172.asp

Just a good dose of plain answers will do the trick

The civil service pay debate has betrayed the chasm of opinion but will the Government heed public sentiments?

Teo Hwee Nak
Commentary & Voices Editor
hweenak@mediacorp.com.sg

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew never fails to rouse emotions when he speaks. .

On Wednesday, he fired off his classic sting amidst the spirited debate over the impending pay rise for ministers and top civil servants. .

Those who quarrel about $46 million — a mere 0.022 per cent of Singapore's Gross Domestic Product — don't have a sense of proportion, he said. .

And if talented Singaporeans shy away from the public sector and top leaders call it quits every five years, Singapore would suffer, and "our women will become maids in other countries". .

Not surprisingly, these words drew protestations from Singaporeans as soon as they saw them in print the next morning. .

MM Lee's words were spot on. Indeed, many of us lack that sense of proportion. .

After all, a $2.2 million annual paycheque is a mind-boggling sum to many Singaporeans, whose average four digit monthly salaries would have barely time to settle into their bank accounts before they're paid out to mortgages, loans and daily expenses. .

While the Government is concerned about losing its top brains, the average Singaporean is anxious about keeping his decent-paying job. While the Government thinks, and deals, in millions, the average Singaporean is used to only handling tens, hundreds — and rarely — thousands in his daily life. .

Therein lies the chasm between the people and Government, and nothing shows up this yawning gap as conspicuously as talk about paying our leaders more. .

Analysing the arguments, it is plain that the two groups are simply speaking in different languages. .

Today, when Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean delivers his ministerial statement on the pay increment, and the House debates, whose language should the discussion assume? .

Bear in mind that no matter how long the debate lasts, it will not make any difference because the raise will materialise anyway. .
Still — all the more because the people will have no say whatsoever in the final decision — if the debate is to be meaningful at all, it has to bridge this gulf by coming down to the level of the average Singaporean. .

Too many questions have been raised in the past few weeks. It would not only be sad, but injurious, if they go unanswered at the end of the session. .
Singaporeans will feel alienated and disengaged, something that will run counter to the Prime Minister's vision of an inclusive society. .

For while we may flash the trump card of "transparency" — that's why we have a formula, that's why we put out the numbers, that's why we're even debating it in Parliament even though there is no need to — the good intentions will all be in vain if the people's sentiments are not directly addressed. .

After all, back in 1994, after the White Paper on Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government was introduced and debated, and passed with only six objections from the House, it appears the majority of the public was still unconvinced and public unhappiness unabated. The recent feedback on the resurfaced issue says it all. .

In rallying support for the White Paper in 1994, MM Lee, who was then Senior Minister, had predicted that in five to 10 years' time, the benchmark formula would have proven itself and been accepted as conventional wisdom, "just as other policies pioneered by Singapore ministers had been adopted by other countries". .

Singapore has indeed maintained its good governance, which has delivered sterling economic and social results. But the benchmark formula is nowhere near being stamped as conventional wisdom. .

Today, the debate has stagnated at the same questions raised back then, and again in 2000 when civil service pay was adjusted upwards and the formula tweaked. Why these six professions? Why top 48 earners? Why two-thirds of this median income? In fact, why have the peg at all? .

In 1994, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had admitted that there was no science behind the numbers in the formula; they were derived from his own judgement. More than a decade on, under a new Prime Minister, a new generation of talent, and a new electorate, it may be time to revisit this judgement call. .

Thirteen years on, has the talent crunch been resolved? If not, is this then a root problem that commands such urgency? Does the fact that we are revisiting the issue point to other reasons for the reluctance we see in potential politicians and mandarins, and to push factors behind the brain drain that, perhaps, the obsession with paying top dollar is masking? Has the Public Service Division conducted an in-depth study to examine what really draws and retains talent? .

In the past couple of weeks, other questions have surfaced. Why pay out pensions on top of the high salaries, when the private sector enjoys no such benefit? .

Since the salaries of ministers and senior civil servants were restructured in 2000 to build in more performance-related bonuses, what then are the key performance indicators for the ministers and the top rungs in their ministries and statutory boards, and how are they appraised? Do all ministers command that market value? .

These are all valid questions. And today's session has to address them. .
In Mr Teo's speech, we may well hear the familiar argument of the import of good governance and the gravity of the talent shortage crisis. But we also look forward to unambiguous answers to the many questions that have been broached. .

In a House dominated by one ruling party, People's Action Party MPs owe it to the electorate to step out of their party shoes and quiz the leaders on the issue with an independent mind and stand, and ensure the debate adopts the language of the man in the street, with sensitivity. .

All eyes will also be on the Opposition MPs, who were disappointingly reserved in the Budget debates. Considering ministerial pay has always been their pet topic at the hustings, Singaporeans will be waiting to see how they perform on the Parliament stage. .

MM Lee said last week that the cure for this firestorm over pay is a good dose of incompetent government. .

I'd say there's no need for excessive medication. Just a good dose of plain answers and an exhaustive down-to-earth debate might perhaps make the bitter pill easier to swallow.

[The_Republic]

http://www.todayonline.com/articles/182499.asp

Giving rise to reason

So, what are those performance indicators? Use more realistic, accurate ways to gauge performance Like the private sector, board of directors should decide on ministers' pay

Letter from Trina Tan
Letter from Lim Boon Hee
Letter from Lim Song Joo

I AM pleased to know that the civil service will be receiving a pay increase, especially when the last major revision was seven years ago. I believe there are civil servants who deserve the hike in salary.
.

However, I still have some doubts about the process.
.

It was reported that 95 per cent of civil servants will get a pay hike, with the amount received by each individual dependent on individual performance. I hope the Government can clarify exactly which performance indicators are used to measure what an individual deserves.
.

This will make the entire process more transparent to the tax-paying public, whom the civil service is essentially accountable to. It will also help justify why almost the entire civil service deserves a pay increase, apart from the need to retain "talent". After all, most members of the public do not really know what civil servants, apart from the more high-profile ministers and Members of Parliament, do.
.

I would also like to understand better where the money for the pay increase will come from.
.

It is important to allay public misgivings, especially with the GST hike in July approaching. The report, "How well is well-paid" (April 10), quoted MP Inderjit Singh as asking: "How do we answer the man in the street when we're told that about one-quarter to one-third of the expected revenue increase this year from the GST is going to be for the proposed ministerial and civil service salary increases".
.

Is that true?
.

I had understood that the tax revenue increase from the GST hike will go into social welfare to reduce the income gap.
.

Why is it then, as Mr Singh so rightly said, that "here we are in the House, (where we were) about a month ago, debating and arguing why we shouldn't be giving our Public Assistance recipients — some 3,000 of them — another $100 monthly-assistance increase, and (now) we're talking about million-dollar salary increases?" ("In phases, tied to performance", April 10).
.

Or, as Opposition MP Low Thia Khiang put it: "It's also ironic we are consuming taxpayers' money and ... discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens."
.

At a time when paying the civil service millions of dollars seems to be more important than helping our needy with tens of thousands of dollars, I cannot help but wonder how much wider Singapore's income gap will become.
.

Hence, I ask that the Government clarify what the performance indicators are, and how much money from the GST hike is to be disbursed among the people. This will help us understand the situation better. It is the only right thing for a transparent Government, which cares for its people, to do.
.
YOU cannot take the health of the whole Singapore economy as a gauge of the performance of the ministers. We need something more specific and concrete to measure performance bonuses.
.

What about other indicators? In public transport, for example, look at the state of our expressways and taxis; for health, long waits, no beds; the rich-poor divide, dengue deaths from poor environmental control, increasingly dirty HDB estates, et cetera.
.

And why not send a few elite scholars out into the private sector for five years or so to see if they really can command the same salaries which they get while in the Government's employ?
.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There's no point just talking about their potential or ability to make tonnes more money outside.
.

I FIND it very ironic that the Government decides for itself how much it deserves to be paid. Who would deny himself a raise? Even the chief executive officer of a company does not have the authority to decide his own pay package.
.

Yet, Singapore has no board of "directors" to decide on remuneration for its ministers and civil servants. Neither do its people have any say, except via feedback avenues.
.

We should have a mechanism, in the form of an advisory board, to determine the remuneration packages of ministers and the civil service. In the private sector, even directors' fees — usually seldom questioned — are put to the vote of shareholders. Why should Singapore's people not have a say in the way our leaders are rewarded, then?
.

In the argument for the pay hike, some of the reasons presented lack balance.
.

The Prime Minister, who by default is the Household Master, is only slightly ahead of the Senior Minister and the Minister Mentor in terms of salary. Why?
.

And why does the President, who is "ceremonial in nature" in our form of parliamentary government, also draw higher wages than the Prime Minister?
.

Another point raised is that each minister deserves more pay as he or she faces more risks and a tougher job as the employment tenure is five years, after which he or she has to be elected to the post again.
.

In the private sector, however, the management's jobs are guaranteed only until the next board meeting. Managers can be sacked if they are found to be not performing.
.

Besides looking merely at policies they have formulated, the ministers should be evaluated according to what they deliver to the people.
.

Every MP who works for his constituents deserves a reward. Why not also look at the margin of each minister's win during the elections to decide on the performance bonuses or increments?
=====================================

The voters are the board of directors.

[The_Republic]

http://www.insanepoly.com/blog/?p=325

So the MIWs got their massive ministerial pay hike (not that things were going to turn out any different).

Whoopdedamndo.

Now shut the **** up and get out of my face.

I don’t want to hear anymore about your justifications and rationalisations. Obviously you guys have no intention of listening to any of the people, so why should we the people listen to you. As someone once said, this has ceased to be a conversation. You tells us what you want and you go ahead and do it whether we the people like it or not. So what’s there to say. So shut the **** up and enjoy your riches. Just don’t tell me you are doing this for my own good or for the good of the country.

For the past 2 friggin days, the ST has daily devoted 5-8 pages to the MIWs justifications for the minsterial pay hikes. Enough of that already.

Shut the **** up.

You’ve got your money, but must you also have the last word as well. Take your ****ing money and go ****ing choke on it. Just shut the **** up and get out of my face. I am sick of your bull****.

I knew that things weren’t going to be any different this time, but still the idealist in me were hoping, just hoping maybe for once the MIWs were going to listen to the people this one time. That maybe respect, gratitude and the admiration of an entire nation is worth more than the couple of million dollars they were going to get. Well I guessed wrong.

Sometimes I have dinner at a coffeeshop near my house and there would be this old lady. Hair all white, back bent over with age. And she would be going from table to table collecting the empty drink cans to exchange it for money. Its hard for me to eat looking at her. I’d like to help, but she only wants my empty drink can and not my money. She may be old, she may be poor, but she still have her pride. And I can’t help but wonder, what exactly is our millionaire ministers doing for her and the thousands like her.

Am I exaggerating?

Look around you, the MRT toilets, the hawker centres, the shopping malls. It pains me to see so many old folks cleaning tables, toilets, picking up after us. Is this the so-called first world nation that the MIWs has built and is this why we have to pay them millions upon millions of dollars?

Pay them millions while the old and the poor get $290 a month in public assistance?

Pay them millions while one of them is mulling over the idea of means testing for C class wards in public hospitals.

And their grand masterplan to narrow the widening income gap?

Raise the ****ing GST!!!

They gave the same ****ing stupid reasons the last time round but looked what happened despite them getting their big fat pay raise. The poor just got poorer and the GST and living costs kept increasing. Meanwhile the rich also got richer.

And they think a good old million dollar pay hike is in order.

And some MPs are actually surprised by the overwhelming negativity of the local internet against the MIWs.

And so they decide to pull some lame stunt to pacify the people. Who gives a ****? You want to donate your money, freeze your pay for 5 days, 5 weeks or 5 years- whatever, I don’t care anymore.

Just shut the **** up.

[cannotliao]

as usual, after all the kpkb. they still get what they want. :D

[D69]

when u cant beat them join them. Im quitting soon, gtg teaching :P:P steady $$$ here i come! why I care about old pple? Im gonna be one soon anyway in like 40 years. U cant help one, let alone all so why care. Just care about urself, get the dough get the car get the house get the holidays tts all. Welcome to Earth.

[vadhog]

u r gonna b a tcr coz u think the $$$ is steady??
sounds like u dun have any frens who r tcrs;
if u do, then u might have missed out some other serious points they say abt teaching. haha

when u cant beat them join them. Im quitting soon, gtg teaching :P:P steady $$$ here i come! why I care about old pple? Im gonna be one soon anyway in like 40 years. U cant help one, let alone all so why care. Just care about urself, get the dough get the car get the house get the holidays tts all. Welcome to Earth.

[alvinaloy]

when u cant beat them join them. Im quitting soon, gtg teaching :P:P steady $$$ here i come! why I care about old pple? Im gonna be one soon anyway in like 40 years. U cant help one, let alone all so why care. Just care about urself, get the dough get the car get the house get the holidays tts all. Welcome to Earth.
2 things...

1. Typical Singaporean attitude. Hope you don't get in. You'll only give other teachers who are passionate about teaching a bad name.
2. As vadhog said, you obviously don't have a clue, especially about how tough teaching Singaporeans and children of Singaporeans is.

[D69]

hahaha i have frds in the teaching sector tts why im joining them for the good money. What makes u think that there are alot of 'passionate' teachers in the school nowadays? Yes there are a few but trust me, im in for the $$!! yeah!!!

[cktandrew]

teaching can be tought.. really really tough.. but if u bo chup, then its an easy job since the quality of students won't affect the teacher's feelings..
seen quite a few when i was schooling years back..
but yes, money is good.....

[D69]

yeah! yeah! be in my class, pass ur exams F off and go next class, next batch come in!! yeah yeah!!! year end bonus, half year bonus, special bonus, performance bonus yeah yeah! teach puberty gals see zaogeng, lobang every day yeah yeah!

[cktandrew]

yeah! yeah! be in my class, pass ur exams F off and go next class, next batch come in!! yeah yeah!!! year end bonus, half year bonus, special bonus, performance bonus yeah yeah! teach puberty gals see zaogeng, lobang every day yeah yeah!

*faint* ....

[The_Republic]

Lest we forget

[Bernie7]

We'll need these "rerun specials" closer to GE time, for er..nostalgia.

Please note what these are and mod, please dun erase these Oldies but Goodies. hor.

[The_Republic]

We'll need these "rerun specials" closer to GE time, for er..nostalgia.

Please note what these are and mod, please dun erase these Oldies but Goodies. hor.

Golden Oldies you mean...haha.....


Choose Beginning at the bottom of all the threads and you can see all the oldies.

70 odd pages in all.

[Bernie7]

No lah...who has time to read so much. Excessive info is disinformation.

What I mean is we need a pre-GE special package picking of the very best ranting threads...as u say, "lest we forget" again at the ballot boxes.

Get the idea? Like the "Best of Elton John" compilation kind of thing?

[The_Republic]

Revisited for Tharman's latest comments on No Wage Increase

[sAVaGEmP5]

i was thinking if lets say one day u were offered pension scheme, and get loads of $$$, will u side peasants or gahment ... ?

[The_Davis]

damn i tot this was recent :( but it's a year old

[VipeR247]

*flabbergasted*

[The_Republic]

damn i tot this was recent :( but it's a year old

Its not really old cause the pay increment is still in motion.:s13:

[The_Republic]

Refresh for Inflation, Recession, Price Hike, Unemployment, Government Pay Raise, High Cost of Living etc.

[The_Republic]

UPPPPPP in response to Perm Sec story.

[hellbanknote]

UPPPPPP in response to Perm Sec story.

i support!!:s12::s12: