Top 10 Highest Paid Government Leaders
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
My contention is that ministers are paid fairly.
Many ministers are actually earning much more in the private sector before they became ministers, which for many of them, meant a drastic pay cut. I would like to cite Dr Vivian Balakrishnan as an example. He was a top eye surgeon before he entered politics, and for a period of time, was also the director of SGH. When he went into politics, however, he had to draw a much lower salary instead.
In addition, I would like to contend that ministers are the life-blood of our nation. They make crucial decisions that may very well decide the fate of our nation. As a result, it is imperative that we recruit not just the smartest, but also, people who have proven themselves of being extremely capable in leading an organization. Thus, I am astounded by the fact that there are actually criticisms regarding ministerial salaries and so forth.
With regards to the numerous digressions about the ineffectiveness of PAP as the government. Many have brought up the point about high inflation rates of Singapore. I would like to point out that Singapore has a rapidly increasing aggregate demand, which is a good thing, in fact, as it drives economic growth. However, we do have very limited and rapidly diminishing resources in the field of labour, brought about by declining birth rates, and this is the very reason why we have a high inflation rate.
I would like to reiterate that the government does not cause inflation.
They have, however, tried to stem it by importing foreigners into Singapore. This is an excellent way to reduce inflation and still achieve economic growth. However, there are numerous social problems with such an influx that the government has yet to solve. Hence, this further heightens the need to recruit better and more capable leaders into the ranks of the government, necessitating the high ministerial salaries.
then dun be a minister lor.
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
However, we do have very limited and rapidly diminishing resources in the field of labour, brought about by declining birth rates, and this is the very reason why we have a high inflation rate.
I would like to reiterate that the government does not cause inflation.
They have, however, tried to stem it by importing foreigners into Singapore. This is an excellent way to reduce inflation and still achieve economic growth.
I don't understand. Can you clarify? Why we are having high inflation and how import aliens can resolve it?
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
When he went into politics, however, he had to draw a much lower salary instead.
But if he really wanted to join politics, the pay wouldn't be a problem wah.
If you are really a political person after power and a high position, the pay cannot be a problem in your calculations.
It is only a problem when you are not a political person but forced to join politics.
-
i also dun understand Ote1983.
Bithrates affect the FUTURE, not the present. Unless you say that the children are born talented and are able to work.
-
This person is here to speak for the despots, to justify the self serving policies of the despots/. Who he kidding that despots don;t earn that much as before they become PAP members????? Please, we are not retards to believe his crap!
-
@winsomeea Hi there, I would like to clarify that I am but a 16 year old boy, who has no political motives whatsoever.
I am just airing my views on the political situation here in Singapore, because I am failing my english and I really need to improve on my argumentative skills. I would like to add on the point that I am not defending the despots (in fact, I mentioned that I am unhappy with certain policies of theirs).
And I stand by my point about ministers drawing higher salaries before they came into parliament. These are known facts that are laid before me and I accept them, instead of denying them. But thank you very much for your criticisms.
@Dalforce 1941 Hi there, importing aliens (I am assuming you refer to foreign workers) would increase the supply of labour and therefore lower the competition for labour, thus allowing us to produce more. This increased production is the very essence of economic growth. (Sorry if I didn't answer your question fully. This is the most I know about economics)
@Summer hill Hi there, yes I know that too, but birth rates were already low in the 1990's and it led to the rise in inflation rate now. Hope that answered you question :)
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
@winsomeea Hi there, I would like to clarify that I am but a 16 year old boy, who has no political motives whatsoever.
I am just airing my views on the political situation here in Singapore, because I am failing my english and I really need to improve on my argumentative skills. I would like to add on the point that I am not defending the despots (in fact, I mentioned that I am unhappy with certain policies of theirs).
And I stand by my point about ministers drawing higher salaries before they came into parliament. These are known facts that are laid before me and I accept them, instead of denying them. But thank you very much for your criticisms.
@Dalforce 1941 Hi there, importing aliens (I am assuming you refer to foreign workers) would increase the supply of labour and therefore lower the competition for labour, thus allowing us to produce more. This increased production is the very essence of economic growth. (Sorry if I didn't answer your question fully. This is the most I know about economics)
@Summer hill Hi there, yes I know that too, but birth rates were already low in the 1990's and it led to the rise in inflation rate now. Hope that answered you question :)
I have connections with the related govt organisation to know that they didn't draw higher pay before they enter politics.
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
@winsomeea Hi there, I would like to clarify that I am but a 16 year old boy, who has no political motives whatsoever.
I am just airing my views on the political situation here in Singapore, because I am failing my english and I really need to improve on my argumentative skills. I would like to add on the point that I am not defending the despots (in fact, I mentioned that I am unhappy with certain policies of theirs).
And I stand by my point about ministers drawing higher salaries before they came into parliament. These are known facts that are laid before me and I accept them, instead of denying them. But thank you very much for your criticisms.
@Dalforce 1941 Hi there, importing aliens (I am assuming you refer to foreign workers) would increase the supply of labour and therefore lower the competition for labour, thus allowing us to produce more. This increased production is the very essence of economic growth. (Sorry if I didn't answer your question fully. This is the most I know about economics)
@Summer hill Hi there, yes I know that too, but birth rates were already low in the 1990's and it led to the rise in inflation rate now. Hope that answered you question :)
1990's? I am born in 1998.
BTW its the goverment fault for not introducing baby bonus then? -
It is a good thing to have high salary in order to attract and retain talent, and also to remove incentives for corruption and other misdeeds.
Some people like to focus on ministers' salaries but they never think about policemen' salary, teachers' salary, etc.
But I think many people understand and agree with the relative parity of the salaries of policemen and teachers compared to the private sector counterparts ones.
But if we agree with the policy on the level of policemen and teachers, logic tells us that we should also agree to a similar policy on the upper level of governance, meaning, the ministers must be well-paid.
Nothing wrong with that.
-
High pay is one thing, high pay until highest in the entire world and the gap between highest and second highest is so big; I cannot accept it.
I reject it.
Others can keep the pay below one million, why Singapore cannot?
It's not like these ministers are SUPER talented. SUPER capable.
I totally reject the high pay for Singapore ministers. They don't deserve it.
Top 10 Political Leader's Salary by Country (2010):
1. Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore): $2,183,516
2. Donald Tsang (Hong Kong): $513,2453. Raila Odinga (Kenya): $427,886
4. Barack Obama (United States): $400,000
5. Nicolas Sarkozy (France): $302,435
6. Stephen Harper (Canada): $296,400
7. Mary McAleese (Ireland): $287,900
8. Julia Gillard (Australia): $286,752
9. Angela Merkel (Germany): $283,608
10. Yoshihiko Noda (Japan): $273,676
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:
High pay is one thing, high pay until highest in the entire world and the gap between highest and second highest is so big; I cannot accept it.
I reject it.
Others can keep the pay below one million, why Singapore cannot?
It's not like these ministers are SUPER talented. SUPER capable.
I totally reject the high pay for Singapore ministers. They don't deserve it.
Top 10 Political Leader's Salary by Country (2010):
1. Lee Hsien Loong (Singapore): $2,183,516
2. Donald Tsang (Hong Kong): $513,2453. Raila Odinga (Kenya): $427,886
4. Barack Obama (United States): $400,000
5. Nicolas Sarkozy (France): $302,435
6. Stephen Harper (Canada): $296,400
7. Mary McAleese (Ireland): $287,900
8. Julia Gillard (Australia): $286,752
9. Angela Merkel (Germany): $283,608
10. Yoshihiko Noda (Japan): $273,676
Most sensible beings don't agree with their pay la. Another form of corruption.
-
Why others their pay below one million, Singapore above two million?
What is so special and great about Singapore government rule that the leaders must have this type of pay?
I completely reject the obscene high pay. In terms of territory and population size, all the states below are bigger than Singapore (except for Ireland), but the pay of their leaders is less than Singapore.
Donald Tsang (Hong Kong): $513,245
3. Raila Odinga (Kenya): $427,886
4. Barack Obama (United States): $400,000
5. Nicolas Sarkozy (France): $302,435
6. Stephen Harper (Canada): $296,400
7. Mary McAleese (Ireland): $287,900
8. Julia Gillard (Australia): $286,752
9. Angela Merkel (Germany): $283,608
10. Yoshihiko Noda (Japan): $273,676
-
@Winsomeea: 1st and 2nd generation leaders, maybe their salaries in the private sector might be lower than their current pay. But 3rd generation leaders too? Many of them are recruited from the cream of the academic crop, and many have numerous scholarships that would invariably lead them into well paying jobs. Would you not agree with me that a president's scholar could potentially earn much more than our ministers, should he choose to join the private sector?
And even if you really did have connections, I am adamant that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan did draw a higher salary before he joined the private sector. But nevertheless, arguing about facts is indeed futile, so I shall not be arguing about that point. Thank you for your comments though.
@Summer Hill: Well, my opinion is that baby bonus was never a good policy at all. By offsetting the long term costs of raising a child with immediate remunerations may not be very effective in resolving the conflict between the ability to afford providing for a child and the desire to have one. Rather, it seems to me that the policy did work only in the short term, to encourage parents to give birth so as to pay off their bills or to be able to afford luxury goods. Thus, it did work in the short term by enticing parents to give birth to more children.
However, that would have left the parents with the huge financial burden of caring for their young in the future, and by then, the money from the baby bonus scheme would have run out; resulting in them being in a worse position to produce more children. This I believe, is the cause of the policy's eventual failure.
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
@Winsomeea: 1st and 2nd generation leaders, maybe their salaries in the private sector might be lower than their current pay. But 3rd generation leaders too? Many of them are recruited from the cream of the academic crop, and many have numerous scholarships that would invariably lead them into well paying jobs. Would you not agree with me that a president's scholar could potentially earn much more than our ministers, should he choose to join the private sector?
And even if you really did have connections, I am adamant that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan did draw a higher salary before he joined the private sector. But nevertheless, arguing about facts is indeed futile, so I shall not be arguing about that point. Thank you for your comments though.
@Summer Hill: Well, my opinion is that baby bonus was never a good policy at all. By offsetting the long term costs of raising a child with immediate remunerations may not be very effective in resolving the conflict between the ability to afford providing for a child and the desire to have one. Rather, it seems to me that the policy did work only in the short term, to encourage parents to give birth so as to pay off their bills or to be able to afford luxury goods. Thus, it did work in the short term by enticing parents to give birth to more children.
However, that would have left the parents with the huge financial burden of caring for their young in the future, and by then, the money from the baby bonus scheme would have run out; resulting in them being in a worse position to produce more children. This I believe, is the cause of the policy's eventual failure.
hey, if you want to imagine they are paid much higher before they enter politics, it is fine with me. Facts are facts, they earned lesser before they enter politics.
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
@Winsomeea: 1st and 2nd generation leaders, maybe their salaries in the private sector might be lower than their current pay. But 3rd generation leaders too? Many of them are recruited from the cream of the academic crop, and many have numerous scholarships that would invariably lead them into well paying jobs. Would you not agree with me that a president's scholar could potentially earn much more than our ministers, should he choose to join the private sector?
And even if you really did have connections, I am adamant that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan did draw a higher salary before he joined the private sector. But nevertheless, arguing about facts is indeed futile, so I shall not be arguing about that point. Thank you for your comments though.
@Summer Hill: Well, my opinion is that baby bonus was never a good policy at all. By offsetting the long term costs of raising a child with immediate remunerations may not be very effective in resolving the conflict between the ability to afford providing for a child and the desire to have one. Rather, it seems to me that the policy did work only in the short term, to encourage parents to give birth so as to pay off their bills or to be able to afford luxury goods. Thus, it did work in the short term by enticing parents to give birth to more children.
However, that would have left the parents with the huge financial burden of caring for their young in the future, and by then, the money from the baby bonus scheme would have run out; resulting in them being in a worse position to produce more children. This I believe, is the cause of the policy's eventual failure.
okay, a chid born in 1990 would be around 21 years old now..in university, right? Got effect meh??
-
@Dalforce 1941 Well, the two million indirectly pays for policies such as CPF, Medisave, compulsory education. And I am sure that you would not deny that these policies has indeed brought Singapore prosperity. Some of the foreign leaders listed above have also praised Singapore's unique and very effective policies, and have sought to study and emulate them. So that it what makes Singapore's civil service so special and great.
I would also like to add on that the incredibly high salaries went to not just PAP members, but also, to the civil service (permanent secretaries, and like what @Veggie Bao mentioned, policemen and teachers), so it would be unfair to say that the PAP is a "money sucking" organization.
-
someone must argue until the cock crows, tsk tsk tsk! PAP is perfect, good la, we accuse them only la , we are very bad la, good enough???????????????
we always get people here to support them and give them all praise but they always deny they are ardent supporters of PAP. tslt tsl tsl ts;
-
Ote1983, a chid born in 1990 would be around 21 years old now..in university, right? Got effect meh??
Give me an answer.
-
Because the reasoning is not based on size, or GDP, or comparison with other foreign leaders.
The comparison is simply relative parity with the private sector counterpart.
Again, similarly, if we look at the starter positions, such as new policemen, new teachers, there is relative parity with their private sector counterparts.
I believe it is important.
Because if there is a significant gap between private and public sector, there is going to be dichotomy and compartmentalization.
The talented people will go to private sector and the leftover losers will go to the public sector.
The public sector workers would be more incompetent, more lazier, more susceptible to bribing, etc, all sorts of problems, which would eventually create problems and difficulties for all of the society.
This is not theory. This is practice and you can see it with your own eyes.
Just look at Malaysia, Indonesia.
In Malaysia if you get caught with traffic violation, you can bribe a policeman with "coffee money"
In Singapore it is much harder to approach a policeman with "coffee money", why ?
It is not some coincidence or some strange configuration of stars which created this situation. So what are the factors which created this situation ? How come Singapore in the middle of Malaysia and Indonesia can have much lesser corruption..?
The answer is, because of the relatively good renumeration.
In whatever organization and whatever job position, having a good renumeration is important.
I believe it is doubly important in public sector because the people in that sector hold power and authority and their decisions have outsized significance and impact on the rest of the society.
One minister who is bribed to give out a road construction project to a company who bribe him, is detrimental and is much more harmful, than the "coffee money" being given to a traffic policeman, so yes, as you go up the ladder, the renumeration need to keep up also.
I believe it is important to have relative parity with private sector.
-
Hi @summer hill. So sorry for not replying, I was studying. However I am not sure that I get your question. I am proposing that the policy the government set has but a short term effect and is therefore useless. So I do not understand your second question. Could you rephrase or elaborate a little more please. Much appreciated :)
-
Ote1983, a chid born in 1990 would be around 21 years old now..in university, right? Is there a effect on the current economy and growth?
-
Ote1983, have you heard the song friday? It has alot of hiddden meaning ya know,
-
Summer Hill: I think i get your question. You are asking about the scenario whereby the government had more foresight and implemented the policy in the 1990s, then will the economic problems we face today still exist?
Well, my reply (if that is what your question meant) is that there will be no positive effects on the economy even if they did implement it in the 1990s. The policy, in my opinion was a failure (the reasons are mentioned in my previous post).
And replying to your second question, yea i've heard the song on a few occasions, but I was nevertheless unable to pick up on any of the hidden meanings. My interpretation of the song is that it merely demonstrates the artiste's love for the fifth day of the week.
Hope that answered your questions :D
-
Originally posted by Ote1983:
Summer Hill: I think i get your question. You are asking about the scenario whereby the government had more foresight and implemented the policy in the 1990s, then will the economic problems we face today still exist?
Well, my reply (if that is what your question meant) is that there will be no positive effects on the economy even if they did implement it in the 1990s. The policy, in my opinion was a failure (the reasons are mentioned in my previous post).
And replying to your second question, yea i've heard the song on a few occasions, but I was nevertheless unable to pick up on any of the hidden meanings. My interpretation of the song is that it merely demonstrates the artiste's love for the fifth day of the week.
Hope that answered your questions :D
are you someone from pap?
-
Originally posted by Summer hill:
are you someone from pap?