Originally posted by angel7030:
Ooi angie
why u never comb hair one?
With so much problems, people are already looking forward to the next election in 2016.
Times are bad.
Gini will always go up because there is no redistribution of income.
Originally posted by charlize:With so much problems, people are already looking forward to the next election in 2016.
Times are bad.
Wow, are you a fortune teller or psychic? You read my mind.
Calls to review what some call the 'corporate Gini coefficient'
By JAMIE LEE
And this comes amid calls to review Singapore's 'corporate Gini coefficient' - or the income gap between CEOs' pay and the median salary.
The highest-paid executive director had an $11.7 million annual salary last year, compared to the top pay of $8.8 million for an executive director in 2008.
By contrast, the non-executive director who was best paid in 2010 took home just $375,000. And in 2008, the best-paid non-executive director actually earned a bit more - $385,000.
The lowest-paid executive director earned $30,000 last year, triple the amount in 2008. By comparison, the lowest-paid non-executive director earned $4,000, double the figure two years previously.
Broadly, some 40 per cent of chief executives were paid more than $1 million last year.
The fixed basic salary made up 57 per cent of the CEO's pay, while 43 per cent came from a variable cash component, according to the poll - which had 84 per cent of the survey participants listed on the mainboard. A quarter of the participating companies have an annual turnover of more than $750 million, up from 17 per cent in 2008.
With non-executive directors' responsibilities getting heavier, their pay could trend higher over time, SID chairman John Lim noted.
'Over a period of time, especially with directors having to make more commitment in time and resources - which would put a natural limit on the number of boards they can serve - it's unavoidable that non-executive directors' pay would have to go up,' he said at a media briefing yesterday.
Directors' fees may be under a disproportionate amount of scrutiny when compared to the focus on executive pay, Lee Suet Fern, managing partner at Stamford Law, highlighted at a corporate governance panel two days ago.
This focus is magnified by how directors' fees are subject to a shareholders' vote while the CEOs' salaries are not, noted Ms Lee, adding that in the US, a non-binding shareholders' vote on CEO salaries has helped to signal to the board whether shareholders are satisfied with the compensation structure.
This vote, known as the 'say on pay', was a rule passed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) early this year.
But Lawrence Loh, of the NUS Business School's department of strategy and policy, said the emphasis should be on having a structured and equitable approach to reward value added and good performance.
'We should not be addressing the issue for the sake of applying parity between the pays of non-executive directors and executive directors and CEOs,' associate professor Loh told BT.
'Given the difference in the relative amounts of pay, shareholder and regulatory attention should focus more on the pay of the executive directors and CEOs.'
SID's Mr Lim pointed out that the explosion of senior management salaries has been a global trend, citing the changes in the pay ratio of US CEOs to the average worker.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, an American non-profit think- tank, the average CEO in America now makes about 300 times as much as the average worker. This is up from 100 times in the early 1990s, and has soared from 40 times in the 1970s.
'That's gone out of whack but what is the (right) ratio?' asked Mr Lim, adding that competition in the global market matters.
'Over time, there will be soul searching as to what is reasonable if a CEO earns in two-thirds of a day more than what a lowest-paid employee earns in a year.'
Stamford Law's Ms Lee added that a winner-takes- all culture could be taking shape when it comes to determining salaries for top executives.
'There is an increasing gap between what the chief executive takes, and what the median salary is within the company. Question whether that is right,' she said on Monday, calling for a review of the 'corporate Gini coefficient'.
But Mr Lim also argued that there has been too much focus on disclosure of CEOs' exact salary.
'If you're earning above $3.5 million and less than $3.75 million, what does it matter if it's plonked in that bracket - rather than (specified as) $3.655 million? It doesn't really serve much purpose.'
It becomes an issue if firms do not disclose an upper band limit, added Mr Lim, noting that companies should explain its compensation structure and how salary has been computed.
Meanwhile, 97 per cent of companies polled by SID last year said they identify potential non-executive directors through personal contacts. Mr Lim urged companies to broaden their search by using third-party firms or by tapping SID's database.
As for tenure of directorships, SID's survey showed that 22 per cent of independent non-executive directors have served on boards for more than nine years, up from 17 per cent in 2008.
(SINGAPORE) An interesting disparity is emerging between the salaries of non- executive directors and executive ones, a survey of 68 Singapore listings by the Singapore Institute of Directors (SID) showed yesterday.
Good that they cite American CEOs making 300 times, they also forgot that the US taxes heavily those from the high income tax bracket, unlike the 20% headline tax of Singapore.
Originally posted by βÎτά:
Good that they cite American CEOs making 300 times, they also forgot that the US taxes heavily those from the high income tax bracket, unlike the 20% headline tax of Singapore.
something the pap never bring up, many people don't notice....very good observation.
singapore is in very very high debt
why didn;t the media report this?where did the $$ go?
wait. i zoom in for u
Originally posted by Jiani:singapore is in very very high debt
why didn;t the media report this?where did the $$ go?
If I did not remember wrongly, I did post article on this some time back and the response to this article was no good. Think nobody in Singapore cares about it.
Hey, Jiani, you have exceeded your age kind of mentality and maturity, are you really 12 or 13 years old only? You are mature than many forumers here.
Originally posted by shanfan:If I did not remember wrongly, I did post article on this some time back and the response to this article was no good. Think nobody in Singapore cares about it.
Hey, Jiani, you have exceeded your age kind of mentality and maturity, are you really 12 or 13 years old only? You are mature than many forumers here.
i am 13.
maybe is because i went through many things in life that made me more mature
Originally posted by Jiani:
i am 13.maybe is because i went through many things in life that made me more mature
Oh really! Hmmmm . . . .. .. . Life is tough . .............
Back to what you posted. PAP only release "good news" that glorify themselves.
8 more years you will be eligible to vote. Please vote carefully and wisely if you want a better life in Singapore.
Originally posted by charlize:With so much problems, people are already looking forward to the next election in 2016.
Times are bad.
The 60.14% less the PAP supporters should ask themselves: Why didn't I vote wisely 2 months back instead of having to wait for another 5 years to do so?
Originally posted by tranquilice:
The 60.14% less the PAP supporters should ask themselves: Why didn't I vote wisely 2 months back instead of having to wait for another 5 years to do so?
Because Singaporeans love to be daft.
Originally posted by charlize:Because Singaporeans love to be daft.
Then no need to look forward to 2016 GE, the result will still be the same or even worse with the large number of new citizens.
Originally posted by Jiani:
i am 13.maybe is because i went through many things in life that made me more mature
Originally posted by dragg:ever quit your job only to find that your new job suck even more.
dont be so sure a new govt would be good.
even if the new govt is no good, you would not want to keep staying in a well for all your life.
For if you do not move, nothing move.
Originally posted by shanfan:Oh really! Hmmmm . . . .. .. . Life is tough . .............
Back to what you posted. PAP only release "good news" that glorify themselves.
8 more years you will be eligible to vote. Please vote carefully and wisely if you want a better life in Singapore.
also, girls mature faster than boys
Originally posted by tranquilice:
Then no need to look forward to 2016 GE, the result will still be the same or even worse with the large number of new citizens.
I think those new citizens who voted last election may switch sides when 2016 comes.
Times are that bad.
Originally posted by charlize:I think those new citizens who voted last election may switch sides when 2016 comes.
Times are that bad.
times are very bad
Originally posted by Jiani:
times are very bad
Don't forget.
New citizens also need to pay higher transport fares and whatever the government wants to increase.
Just because you are a new citizen doesn't mean you get a discount on any price increases.
They got their new pink ICs, better start paying like those with the old pink ICs.