REX comments as follows,
I have heard of the "sour grapes" argument several times before. Some people think that commenting on Minister's pay is a sign of "jealousy". I don't think so. "Jealousy" means you don't have something, you want something others have. In the bible it is called covetousness, and it is one of the sins under the Ten Commandments.
It is not jealousy because, I don't even want $3 million a YEAR. It is good enough for me to have $100,000 a YEAR to be comfortable (even less, if i have been already working for 30 years, since i have accumulated wealth already). I cannot be jealous of something i don't need. What I am going to do with 3 million a year? There is a law of diminishing returns. Too much of something IS COMPLETELY USELESS. It is a waste of resources. It is like forgetting to close the tap, the water just wastes away, it could hae been put to better users. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Not Jealousy.
Another reader suggested that our PM is much better than President Obama, so he deserves his salary. Even if I agree with the reason he gave (which I don't), where do we stop - pay LHL 5 times Obama's salary? Why not 6 times? Why not 10 times? How about 100 times? How do you calculate the number that leads to their salaries, if they are so good?
I went to the Minsitery of Finance Singapore Budget website and check out the Prime Minister's Office staff costs. It was only about 0.3 % of the Total 2010 Budget of Expenditure of Singapore. Oh yes, if you compute salaries by relating to budget of the country, you may say 0.3% is peanuts. But this is unfair playing with statistics.
I give example: An agent who spent 1 hour selling a $1 million house gets commission of 2%($20,000). He coud spent the same time to sell a $100,000 house and get only $2,000. Is there significant difference between the efforts made selling a bigger house and a smaller house, to justify such a huge commission? Commission is a dirty word, because the percentage cuts are pegged to items which don't necessarily relate to the effort put in. Same as in the political scenario as per the salary.
Finally, the argument that "we should move on and stop grumbling about their salary". It is none of my business if CEO of XYZ company gets paid huge amounts. It is a commercial entity and the company is profit driven and can pay him what they like to. However, minister's salary are TAXPAYERS money at source. Taxpayers money can be allocated to many other areas of development in a country, unlike a commercial private company which is duty bpund only to make profits and nothing else.
Open your eyes big big.
Do not be like a deaf frog, cannot hear.
Do not be like sheep ready to be led to slaughter, day after day, year after year.
REX
I have heard of the "sour grapes" argument several times before. Some people think that commenting on Minister's pay is a sign of "jealousy". I don't think so. "Jealousy" means you don't have something, you want something others have. In the bible it is called covetousness, and it is one of the sins under the Ten Commandments.
It is not jealousy because, I don't even want $3 million a YEAR. It is good enough for me to have $100,000 a YEAR to be comfortable (even less, if i have been already working for 30 years, since i have accumulated wealth already). I cannot be jealous of something i don't need. What I am going to do with 3 million a year? There is a law of diminishing returns. Too much of something IS COMPLETELY USELESS. It is a waste of resources. It is like forgetting to close the tap, the water just wastes away, it could hae been put to better users. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. Not Jealousy.
Another reader suggested that our PM is much better than President Obama, so he deserves his salary. Even if I agree with the reason he gave (which I don't), where do we stop - pay LHL 5 times Obama's salary? Why not 6 times? Why not 10 times? How about 100 times? How do you calculate the number that leads to their salaries, if they are so good?
I went to the Minsitery of Finance Singapore Budget website and check out the Prime Minister's Office staff costs. It was only about 0.3 % of the Total 2010 Budget of Expenditure of Singapore. Oh yes, if you compute salaries by relating to budget of the country, you may say 0.3% is peanuts. But this is unfair playing with statistics.
I give example: An agent who spent 1 hour selling a $1 million house gets commission of 2%($20,000). He coud spent the same time to sell a $100,000 house and get only $2,000. Is there significant difference between the efforts made selling a bigger house and a smaller house, to justify such a huge commission? Commission is a dirty word, because the percentage cuts are pegged to items which don't necessarily relate to the effort put in. Same as in the political scenario as per the salary.
Finally, the argument that "we should move on and stop grumbling about their salary". It is none of my business if CEO of XYZ company gets paid huge amounts. It is a commercial entity and the company is profit driven and can pay him what they like to. However, minister's salary are TAXPAYERS money at source. Taxpayers money can be allocated to many other areas of development in a country, unlike a commercial private company which is duty bpund only to make profits and nothing else.
Open your eyes big big.
Do not be like a deaf frog, cannot hear.
Do not be like sheep ready to be led to slaughter, day after day, year after year.
REX
So what is the conclusion? That our PM deserves such a high pay or not? Or this is really none of our business and move on to earn our living despite is taxpayers' money?
ReplyDeleteTo first commentator, if you even need someone to answer this question of yours, I suggest you read the post's last few sentences which i shall post here:
ReplyDeleteOpen your eyes big big.
Do not be like a deaf frog, cannot hear.
Do not be like sheep ready to be led to slaughter, day after day, year after year.
We are really taken aback and impressed when the papers reported that DBS Chairman Koh made
ReplyDeletea personal contribution of 2.5m to
NTU out of his own pocket. We would
look at the high Ministers' pay packet in a different way if our Ministers follow his example.
Alast, we never hear about MM Lee or our PM Lee being so generous.
Even when MM Lee does charity, they
are to put on sale gifts given by
foreign heads of State's gifts to
MM, never cash from his own pockets.
Our these two leaders are not only tight-fisted from their own pockets, but tight-fisted with the elderly poor also, whose miserable few $360 welfare have to be debated in parliament.
Why do our two leaders need so much money for, we can't bring them into our coffins - may as well
donate some to help the poor, leaving so much money to the next generation usually encourage these
beneficiaries to squander the inheritance.
Stinginess seems to be a trait of
this Govt, whether on a State level
or on a personal level. No wonder
The Economist label Singapore a
stingy nanny Govt.
For Singapore's reputation, please do not donate US50,000 to countries
who experience disasters. It's peanuts to relief fund agencies,
only sufficient to pay for relief
workers travelling expenses, with nothing benefitting the affected peoples. It's better not to donate
at all than to broadcast Singapore's stinginess to the world.
The conclusion is our PM do not deserve such high pay. Just turn on your TV and listen to what China PM Wen talk and what he has done and how our PM talk and what he has done for us other than initiated CPF life.
ReplyDeleteThe original intention of high pay is to attract talents to run he country.
ReplyDeleteI believe the formula is to take highest pay of professionals in five areas and divide by 5. The final figure is the pay of PM, maybe some percentages less.
I find that the formula is reasoable but I do not know why the PMs of other countries are paid so low compare to PM of Singapore.
It is not correct for the ministers to take exorbident salary from the nation coffers.
ReplyDeleteBy giving themselves such high salary, it becomes receiving a disguised form of welfarism, then how do you tell the majority of Singapore people welfarism is not good.
Hypocrisy at work....
Let me play the devil's advocate.
ReplyDeleteWhile the views posted can be considered noble, the reality of the situation may be quite different. There are ppl who would like earning $3 mil pa eventhough they do not need it. Let's face it - who would turn down a fat pay for a comfortable, cushy, protected job?
It would be great if some of the high-flying civil servants voluntarily reject the million $ salaries and accept a modest one. But the system here will not allow such a thing, as such an act will set a new benchmark for othere to follow. I'm sure many of the top govt servants feel guilty about the obscene salaries they are drawing, but hey why rock the boat? They shamelessly take their undeserving salary and walk away.
What can one do with the millions? Plenty. Starting charitable causes is one noble cause eg the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. There are thousands of ways of improving the socio-economic strata of 3rd world countries. Perhaps our ministers are doing this, but I'm not privy to such onfo. If so, then it is good. So, greed may be good in this sense, provided it is managed well.
High pay is not the problem. The problem is in the results. We don't want to pay peanuts and get monkeys.
ReplyDeleteSo far, I do not see any improvement in the lives of Singaporeans over the last 15 years.
I agree with Rex. There're terms for the practice of astronomical high salaries in public service. Conflict of interest and moral hazard. Public service (as in charity e.g. T.T. Durai case or as in religion e.g. Shi Minyi case) are supposed not-for-profit.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with performance pegged to justify and afford astronomical salaries, the person in position and power would be under pressure to "perform", i.e. increase revenues. Businesses make profits from customers. Government takes revenues from citizens. However, the stated objective of business is to be an ongoing profit-making concern. The stated objective of government is to take care of citizens. This objective, as far as I can see, has been overriddened by the revenue motive to justify their salaries.
Another hazard that some may not see. Ministers are fed with money to be so rich within a few years that anyone who screw up or got fedup can afford to just pat-pat backside and walk off and still live comfortably, if not luxuriously.
Lim Swee Say can afford to say anything he likes, can afford not to think before they talk, like being deaf frog in the well. Worse comes to worst, just walk off, with millions in his bank account already. Why worry?
The way I read your argument, is that you do not want to pay good money for good leadership and management.
ReplyDeleteYou want cheap and good.
Fine.
Let me know anyone who can take on any of the Minister's job, at 1/10 of the said 1 million/year salary.
The truth is this: nobody with the talent, skillset and aptitute is going to take this job for less than 1 million.
If you can find someone who can do that I rest my case.
Welcome to the real world. Move out other issues than the Ministers' pay.
My 1cent opinion:
ReplyDeleteGovernment should explain to the public how they decide and justify the pay of civil servant. This should be done by renumeration committee
Please don't bring religious issues into the discussion. It is out of context and you are not the expert. By the way, unless you are God, we are all sinners. It does not matter if one commits one sin or two sins.
ReplyDeleteYou do not want $3 million or your skillset or capability does not allow you to even worth $3 million?
Maybe that's because you are thinking you are not worth it, that's why you can't even earn $100,000/year! We are what we think about all the time. If you think you can, you are right; if you think you can't you are right too!
Is it right to pay Bill Gates or Warren Buffet what they are worth? You think getting high pay is a waste of resources - what a frog in the well! How high is high? Just because for your entire life you never earned more than $100,000, you think it is right for you to pass judgement - it is a waste of resources?
Just because you like tofu and rice doesn't mean the rest of the world eating sushi and sashimi are "wasting resources". Just because you can only afford a bicycle doesn't mean the rest cannot buy a car.
If you are an average Joe, that's ok. But don't think the world must revolve around you. You had your opportunities and if you lost them, that's your fault but don't expect the world think and behave in your rational - because, after all, that's why you are an average joe.
Maybe that's why you are who you are now - a grumbler and disgruntled person, instead of a successful contributor to society like Mr. Tan.
To Anon 9:41 AM
ReplyDeleteBefore we can reach a conclusion on ministers' obscene high pay, we have to know the government's rationale on this issue. The main reason given in the white paper is that high pay is necessary to ensure the ministers are clean and free of corruption. Attracting new talents is another reason cited. After more than a decade of implementation of high pay for ministers, we can conclude that we have a world class clean government. But I still do not see many new talents becoming ministers. Many of the old guards just simply refuse to retire even into their seventies and eighties.
This is really uniquely Singapore.
Anonymous 1:47PM
ReplyDeleteI don't think the government today is doing a good job at all, whether at high or low pay.
Detractors to protestors of high ministerial pays usually use pay for talents to sidetrack the focus into pay levels. I see clearly and stay focused. They're not talents. Neither are they doing too badly too, but not talents enough to deserve so high pays.
Look at policy and result track records. If you as a citizen call that million dollar talent, I also have to rest my case as I have nothing more say.
As for who to replace them, that's a political question and intrigue. They set up laws and barriers so that very few could or would stand up to challenge them. Still, at every election, there're 40 or 50 who stood up. Your vote is yours to decide.
There are at least 66.6% of the voters in the last election who are happy with the Government's policies and performance, and this includes the ministers pay.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like their pay, just vote against them and persuade your friends to do likewise too. That would send a strong signal.
However, you will find that more than 2/3 of the voters will disagree with you. I am waiting to see some REAL actions from people who are unhappy with the present policies. For years, these same people all talk, whine, complain and when it comes to elections, the same people meekly cast their vote for the same people they are unhappy with. How uniquely Singapore!
Is this a milder version of the Stockholm Syndrome?
Warren Buffett, arguably the greatest investor in history, only draws an annual salary of $100,000, even though his investment he managed worth about US$240b, about the size of Singapore GDP. Why can't our leaders learn from him?
ReplyDeletemy friend, "commission is a dirty word"? Do you do such generalization often?
ReplyDeleteYou brings in an item at say $10, and you sell it at $20, you call this "profit" and it is ok?
You do some work for people, people pay you some money, which we often call "commissions", it is not ok?
"Percentage cuts are pegged to items that do not necessarily relate to the effort put in" - what effort is needed to make a cup of coffee/tea? Why does it costs more than SGD$0.10? Who decides the value?
Compare commissions and salary, do you think a salary relates to the effort put in?
I appreciate you for presenting your views but to generalize in this way shows ignorance or lack of exposure.
Per my earlier post, a better way to assess salary and performance is to use the ratio of salary divided by the per capita GDP (rather the country's entire GDP.
ReplyDeletePer capita GDP = GDP divided by population
Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/04/world_leaders_cheap_at_the_pri.html
The author presented a table of 14 countries and their leaders' salaries.
COUNTRY SALARY / GDP per capita
------- ----------------------
1. China 4.2
2. Canada 5.3
3. United Kingdom 6.4
4. Russia 6.5
5. Australia 6.5
6. Japan 7.0
7. France 8.3
8. United States 8.7
9. Brazil 8.9
10. Germany 9.1
11. South Korea 11.2
12. South Africa 21.8
13. Mexico 26.0
14. Indonesia 53.8
15. Singapore 107.0 (est. below)
The author remarked "the Chinese President Hu Jintao is the "best" VFM (value for money) world leader with a salary equivalent to roughly four people's GDP contribution.
Singapore was not mentioned in the study. But let me give it my best estimate.
PM LHL Salary: S$3.8 million = US$2.7 million
S'pore per capita GDP: US$35,515 (2009)
SALARY/GDP per cap: 107
Looks like China's leader takes the Hon. Lim Swee Say award for "Cheap and Good".
Rex comments on anon 2.07 pm post,
ReplyDeleteIf you think LHL truly has the skillset to qualify for a $3 million a year salary, that's absolutely fine. It is your right to think so.
But, it's got nothing to do with me, whether I, REX have the skillset or not. I dislike such kinds of arguments bordering on personal attacks, it goes like this:
"A" talks about something objective.
"B" responds "you know nothing. you are not as capable as they are, and you probably won't make it, so don't comment. You are not even contributing to society"
Good grief, My personal wealth, my personality, whether i contribute to soceity --- they've got nothing to do with the points being discussed.
The issues at hand, alone, should be debated on its own merit. Character assassination is unnecessary and ungentlemanly.
REX
Becoming a minister is about the love for your country and the passion to SERVE and NOT BE SERVED. If money becomes the motivation, its totally wrong motive. Our ministers' salary should be benchmark with the other developed countries' minister and GDP. If one love money so much, he should stay in the private sector and not SERVE his people.
ReplyDeleteI also agreed with the 3rd writer. I had always being thinking why our Media Corp artisles had to risk their life (previously) to just raise a few million dollars. Don't the country has many many times that peanut amount that it can lose on UBS, BofA, message chair company and child care centre investments, etc, etc?
I strongly feel that welfare for the very sick and poor people are not enough. Our gahment can support them more, rather than pushing it to the private sector to do all sorts of things to find the money, and in the end the NKF saga. What heppended if one of the media corp artisle got seriosuly injured or die in the course of doing good ? Is the gahment going to give his family $1 million ? Tan ku ku.
For a start, maybe we can hire Warren Buffet to be our Finance Minister. Only US$100,000 per year, no need bonuses or even increment. Buffet has been drawing this same salary for the past 29 years.
ReplyDeleteBloomberg article
Problem is this "market rate" salary concept started off with noble intentions, but has become corrupted over the years. To the point where you have welfarism, socialism and minimum wage for the elites, but brutal capitalism for the masses. And it shows in their words, in their actions. Arrogant, head in the clouds, concern more with preserving the status quo, preserving their big bucks, preserving their good life. No wonder Jim Rogers wasn't offered an advisory job to GIC or TH. He must have pissed off the elites with his blunt talk when he met with GIC early on. And he can still say to the press in early 2008 (before Lehman Brothers collapsed) that he "grieves" for S'pore, because he knew that GIC & TH had made very bad investments, and we would lose a lot of money.
Why do we need so many SMs for,
ReplyDeleteI do not see any real renewal of leadership, everything has to be in
the hands of an old MM Lee, who is way past retirement. They still
stay in politics, and continue to receive obscene pay.
Are they really talented, I see they are declining in grey matter,
making so many mistakes esp losing
so much of our moneys.
They are expensive and a drain in
State coffers, spending moneys on
frequent
expensive overseas travel, bringing
along doctors, nursses and bodyguards, and needing hotel accomodations,etc.
Fact is, a govt is supposed to take care of the poor more than the rich. It is wrong in the first place to tie their pay to just the top 5 CEO's. A major factor should have been tied to increasing the majority poor's pay.
ReplyDeleteA.Bee
It is not so much the absolute amount $3 million that is the issue here, my main objection is the whole gamut of policies that result in a very large income gap between the highest and lowest incomes.
ReplyDeleteI will happily give them $3 million if the lowest income earner gets $300K. But as it is now, the lowest income earner gets only a few thousand dollars. However talented one might be, no one works a thousand times better or faster or longer than another human being. This must mean that the poor are being exploited and abused by the rich and powerful.
An elected government is supposed to take care of its citizens in general. It does not require a talented person to give themselves the highest pay, any Tom would know how to do that. If they are that good then they should peg their pay inversely to the income gap, the smaller the income gap the higher their pay, this will ensure that the poor are taken care of through leveling up.
To Anon 1.47 pm.
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the pt. We are not talking about wanting cheap and good. The issue is about paying ministers reasonable wages for their services involving talent, skillset and aptitute. We don't want the ministers to go hungry or not have a roof over their heads, do we?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_social_security_ious
ReplyDeleteAh well, don't worry, we will soon be joined by the soon to be extremely poor Americans.
I really pity the baby boomers the most. Who would have thought the American government would take money from their own social security.
I wonder what would happen when America defaults on its debt.
But screw the gahmen man! Who told them they could take big pay and have billions of reserves lying around when they could have simply paid themselves peanuts and put the country in debt. Look at the US, they did it so well!
To Anon 2.07 pm,
ReplyDeleteNo personal attacks on this blog pls. Just discuss and comment on the issues, if that is not asking too much from you.
You write as though you have the skillset or capability to earn $3 million. Well, do you? If so, you should apply to be a minister.
Bill Gates or Warren Buffet's salary are accorded under totally different situations. They run commercial enterprises. Their salaries are approved at shareholder's mtg by the majority of shareholders. Is our ministers' salaries approved by the electorate? Or does the minister design, specify and approve his own salary?
We should pay our leaders high pay. But how much ?
ReplyDeleteIf an ordinary worker earned $20,000 pa, then earning
$100,000 pa (5x20,000) will be considered as high pay
$200,000 pa (10x)will be considered as very high pay
$400,000 pa (20x)will be considered as very very high pay
$800,000 pa (40x)will be considered as very very very high pay
$1.6 millions pa (80x) will be considered as very very very very high pay
$3.2 millions pa (160x)will be considered as ………………….
Continue from 11:10pm.
ReplyDeleteI would like to suggest that we pay our leaders very very very high pay (i.e. $800,000 pa)
Anon. 11:38am comments:
ReplyDelete“I believe the formula is to take highest pay of professionals in five areas and divide by 5. The final figure is the pay of PM, maybe some percentages less.”
The formula is wrong because to get his pay increased, what our PM need to do is just ensuring the few rich people (few professionals) getting riches.
Our PM’s pay should be pegged to our national average wage or national medium wage (e.g. 50 x national average wage) so that PM’s pay increased only when the majority of people’s wage increased.
There is no choice.
ReplyDeleteOur political system is deliberately
designed to thwart any rebellion.
If we, the citizens are not happy, we are free to leave. Not to vote for the opposition.
High pay or low pay, passion or without... the new world order is money.Leave passion to people who climb mountains in search of truth.
We, in singapore need jobs... not cultural and political pursuits. What purpose does it serve to cuss and curse at other people's pay?
Yes, my tax has contributed to it.
The choices I have to change the status quo is... zero.
At the very least, the people who voted yes for the high pay should not receive it.
ReplyDeleteThe current method for setting minister pay is to ensure we attract good talents to govern the country. To get good talent, we need to pay good money. Governing the country require certain sacrifices. Becoming a public figure has its inconveniences. Ask J Neo ...
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think the current method can be fine tuned. If LHL is not a doctor by training, why benchmark his pay against a doctor? Despite his immense talent, it is unlikely he will ever go to medical school.
One alternative method is to benchmark minister's pay with their previous profession. If the minister was a lawyer in training, benchmark his pay with the top 1% of the people in that profession. If the minister was previously in the armed forces for 9 years before working as a banker for 1 year, then 90% of his pay should be tied to pay in the armed forces and 10% of his pay will be tied to pay in the banking sector.
What if someone who was an entrepreneur or a CEO applies for the job? Do we want to pay them the millions of dollars they made annually? My suggestions is to set their pay to something equivalent to the top 1% of the pay for civil servants. Rationale is that such people have already made for themselves a lot of money and if their motivation for becoming cabinet minister is just to make more money, then we better not engage them. If money is so important, and is never enough, they may very well compromise our government's integrity by taking bribe.
The disadvantage of the above method is that you may have some Ministers of State being paid more than Cabinet Ministers. I agree this may not seem fair, but hey, that is life. Some Minister of State may have specialize degrees and it is only right that they are compensated for that.
The advantage of this scheme - no overpaying for talents. Citizens have less to grumble and we can move on to more critical national issues.