only spore ministers salary is high
-
Indeed, living in Singapore is expensive. And it looks like it's gonna get even more expensive in the near future. At current prices, just buying a HDB flat will cost an average Singaporean more than 20 years of hard work and savings. If HDB prices continue to rise, it's gonna get even worse.
The government justifies the high salary for ministers using the argument "If we don't pay these talents good money, they'll run off to work for the big banks and financial institutions." Regardless if the average Singaporean buy this line of reasoning or not, the situation remains that the government makes all the decisions.
In other words, suck it up. Who ask you don't study hard when you were young? Maybe you could have been a minister earning millions?
-
"Get out of my elite uncaring face"
-
Originally posted by godchuanz:
Indeed, living in Singapore is expensive. And it looks like it's gonna get even more expensive in the near future. At current prices, just buying a HDB flat will cost an average Singaporean more than 20 years of hard work and savings. If HDB prices continue to rise, it's gonna get even worse.
The government justifies the high salary for ministers using the argument "If we don't pay these talents good money, they'll run off to work for the big banks and financial institutions." Regardless if the average Singaporean buy this line of reasoning or not, the situation remains that the government makes all the decisions.
In other words, suck it up. Who ask you don't study hard when you were young? Maybe you could have been a minister earning millions?
Pros and Cons, if you leased a HDB, your current asset increases, and you will feel confident and delighted, but if you are on the market looking for a resale flat, god bless you.
I have alway emphasis that it is not the govt who make the decision, it the people, if the people move as one, the govt will have to give way, but if people are individualistic, the govt will take advantages, being multi racial is actually a advantage to the govt, because different racial cannot mix up together due to different perspectives, and LKY plays it into our lives, end up all voting for PAP even tho you can hear some complaining here and there, but at the ballot table, most ticked PAP. So, do you want to blame the govt or the people who chose them. You hv to impartial in saying that the govt make all the decision and they are taking high pays. If by and large, PAP lost this election, the scenerios of high paid will be wipe off.
-
Cheaper faster better only applies to lesser mortals.
For elites it's expensive slower worse.
-
Please do not attack the ministers salary.
In my opinion, it is a good thing, not a bad thing.
It is important to maintain an attractive and competitive renumeration package, so that the top talents of a society can easily move back and forth and permeate and have easy traffic, between politics and other realms.
In this way, the political spots can attract the cream of the society.
If not, only a certain type of people will be in politics.
Politics will be compartmentalized and segregated from the rest of the other realms.
The people there will be slow, bureaucratic, class-B type of people, easy to bribe, corrupt, and / or overly ideological in a certain way.
In theory, there is nothing wrong with ministers high salary.
As an example, I always say, we must look at the salary of policemen and teachers.
Singapore's policemen and teachers are well paid by world's standards. In Singapore, after you are in a traffic violation, you will not dare to offer the policeman "coffee money".
But just a stone's throw away, in Malaysia and Indonesia, it is a common practice.
University graduates also enter into teaching profession. Teachers are relatively well paid and they can concentrate on their jobs. In other countries, university graduates dont want to enter the teaching profession and teaching is seen as dead-end career.
Now, do you support the cutting of salary of policemen and teachers?
Most people would say no.
But why do you propose the cutting of salary of ministers?
Same theory. Since they are supposed to be top visionary leaders, and they sit at a higher peak in the organizational pyramid chart, they need to be compensated with higher renumeration.
They need to have attractive salary, just like what happen with the policemen and teachers.
Please dont attack this policy.
In my opinion, it is barking up the wrong tree.
-
politicians cannot be trusted. never trust the words of politicians. I always thought if one wants to earn alot of money, dun come into politics. you join politicis because you care about your country even if you are paid a mere 100k a year. 100k a year is a decent sum of living, can live in a condo and driving a car.
-
Would you use the same arguments for teachers and policemen as well?
Teachers.....is teaching the next generation....instilling new values...shaping the future.....very noble right? So teachers can just be paid some decent amount, no need very much.
How about policemen?
They uphold the law, defend citizens, protect society.....such a noble occupation....so people should be motivated, no need to pay attention to the salary.
If you can see from these arguments, it is just the same theory with ministers.
No need to cut their salaries, anyways, Singapore budget is quite balanced, it is Ok, No problem and no need to cut it.
-
policemen and teachers salary are already low. those who earned 100k and above must be those top brass like superintendents and principals. those rank and file teachers and policement dun earn that much.
-
I just use it as an example, but it is a principle which applies to the high positions also.
Why use 100k limit?
Or any kind of limit, to look decent and humble, why?
Why must they be capped and limited like that? Whats wrong with paying high salary?
A specialist doctor easily earn millions a year.
How can a specialist doctor sitting in a small clinic earn more money than the Health Minister overseeing big hospitals and the health policy of the nation?
So what kind of system are we building if the human-resource allocation is lopsided like that in the society?
-
you still dun get it do u. want to earn money, work in the private sector, dun work in the public sector, you wont get rich.
from the rationale you used, the US is the richest country in the world with their GDP. why is their president, a global leader and a superpower, only earns so little as compared to our ministers here, less than 200,000 USD a year. compare US and Singapore. how many states does US have and the population? what say you?
our ministers salary can be how many times higher than the US president?
-
you come into politics because you want to contribute and make a difference, not that politicians can be trusted. if not, stay in the private sector to earn big bucks.
-
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with that.
Why wouldnt the same arguments be used for policemen and teachers?
The reason is because, despite altruistic motivations, humans also need financial compensation.
There is really no need to depend solely on altruistic motivations only, and I think that will be disastrous.
And you mentioned about private sector. This is my second part of arguments, in that, if there is not too much gap between public and private sector, there will be easier traffic between the two.
At the current moment, lots of ministers and MPs are doctors and lawyers. This can be seen as something positive. At least they are do-ers and they have already succeeded in their life and their private sector profession.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
you come into politics because you want to contribute and make a difference, not that politicians can be trusted. if not, stay in the private sector to earn big bucks.
. . . . staying in private sector to earn big bucks . .. . is limiting manipulation . .in governance and earn fast big bucks . .. entitles them to control the country as a whole . . . .. make policies, control for own benefits to quick big bucks.
private companies still .. . . have to comply to the govt
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
you still dun get it do u. want to earn money, work in the private sector, dun work in the public sector, you wont get rich.
from the rationale you used, the US is the richest country in the world with their GDP. why is their president, a global leader and a superpower, only earns so little as compared to our ministers here, less than 200,000 USD a year. compare US and Singapore. how many states does US have and the population? what say you?
our ministers salary can be how many times higher than the US president?
That's why i say outsource the mps jobs to us. better. this don't justify. our dollar in strength compared to us. but why a less than 1.6m in height minister pay higher than us president? -
High salary prevents corruption.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
High salary prevents corruption.
not money is the cause of all evils? -
Originally posted by Veggie Bao:
Please do not attack the ministers salary.
In my opinion, it is a good thing, not a bad thing.
It is important to maintain an attractive and competitive renumeration package, so that the top talents of a society can easily move back and forth and permeate and have easy traffic, between politics and other realms.
In this way, the political spots can attract the cream of the society.
If not, only a certain type of people will be in politics.
Politics will be compartmentalized and segregated from the rest of the other realms.
The people there will be slow, bureaucratic, class-B type of people, easy to bribe, corrupt, and / or overly ideological in a certain way.
In theory, there is nothing wrong with ministers high salary.
As an example, I always say, we must look at the salary of policemen and teachers.
Singapore's policemen and teachers are well paid by world's standards. In Singapore, after you are in a traffic violation, you will not dare to offer the policeman "coffee money".
But just a stone's throw away, in Malaysia and Indonesia, it is a common practice.
University graduates also enter into teaching profession. Teachers are relatively well paid and they can concentrate on their jobs. In other countries, university graduates dont want to enter the teaching profession and teaching is seen as dead-end career.
Now, do you support the cutting of salary of policemen and teachers?
Most people would say no.
But why do you propose the cutting of salary of ministers?
Same theory. Since they are supposed to be top visionary leaders, and they sit at a higher peak in the organizational pyramid chart, they need to be compensated with higher renumeration.
They need to have attractive salary, just like what happen with the policemen and teachers.
Please dont attack this policy.
In my opinion, it is barking up the wrong tree.
i think you are mixing things up here or you are confused. no one is asking LHL and his lackeys to take home $4500/mth. however, i think it will do LHL's public service credentials a whole lot of good if he can halve his salary of $2m+. $1m/year is still hell alot of money in my opinion.
also, it is presumptuous to say that all our current and previous ministers will earn big bucks had they stayed in the private sector. take our beloved wong kang seng for instance; he was a hr manager @ an mnc b4 joining politics. i would wager my meager 1mth salary to bet that he will not be earning close to what he is now if he were to stay in the private sector. and also a recent perm sec who tried to bring hip into the government by rapping and breakdancing, probably triple his salary since joining politics than during his private sector days. and not all lawyers/doctors will earn $m salary. maybe $2-300k/year or slightly more, which is still great in all accounts but not at the level the government would want us to believe.
i agree that money politics played out in our friendly neighbouring countries ain't a pretty sight, but neither is ours. some would argue that legitimizing it is even worse.
-
how come the president of US and the UK PM are paid so much lower than our ministers? these are rich and powerful nations and spore is a dot nia.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
High salary prevents corruption.
No. If a person is weak in the mind he will be corrupted. If he is strong and wants to do good to the people then he don't have to draw sky high salaries to do that. Of course we are not asking ministers to draw low salary, or salary that is not on par or competitive at all against the rpivate sectors. But see that sg money lost in investments i feel that there must be an internation rule or law that governments minister of sate salary.Now see, a president of a powerful continent drawing less tahn a minister of a small island country?
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
High salary prevents corruption.
-
Originally posted by -StarDust-:
High salary prevents corruption.
Sure, corruption is in a way, you do it first, then we paid you, or pay 30% first, when job complete pay the other 70%As for high salary, you paid the 100% upfront without knowing if the job is going to get done or not...it is also a corruption...called anti corruption.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Sure, corruption is in a way, you do it first, then we paid you, or pay 30% first, when job complete pay the other 70%As for high salary, you paid the 100% upfront without knowing if the job is going to get done or not...it is also a corruption...called anti corruption.
i want u........ -
Things only get more expensive what. I never really hear things getting cheaper when years goes by. So if you are barely making it now, do you think your kids are gonna survive in the future? The time bomb is already ticking. Save your kids the trouble. Stop giving birth, or migrate.
-
Many countries have set minimium wages for their workers.If i remember correctly,recently Hong Kong also wanted to set minimium wages for his ppl.
I believe the reason why the PAP ministers dont want to set minimium wages for their countrymen n women is becoz they are corrupting,n thus,helping those businessmen(whether local or foreigners) to exploit their own ppl.
-
This is the so-called "White-shirt devil".