Singapore Democrats

hmm... civil disobedience does work. Good job Tak Boleh Tahan guys.

The "committee" set up,in order to have a purportedly "independent" body to prove they had been right after all about the payments?

Take note that PM's "terms of reference" for Gerard's committee are the old ones, including pegging the salaries to "private sector" pay, with no reassessment about whether political, public service should be held to be similar to money-making CEOs of business corporations - a crucial point of dispute in the matter.

And yet, we are told that "nothing is sacrosanct" and "no tables would be unturned" at the "transformation".

So Gerard might conclude that their pay had been comparable, even at great sacrifice, to private sector pay, and that, in order to appease "spoilt" voters, a further token sacrifice would be recommended.

As Kenneth said, it might only be "a PR exercise".

They can still use the "performance bonus" payout to reward themselves massively and secretly without anyone knowing but themselves. These P bonuses are payable every apr of every year to all civil servants and can range from 1 mth to 11 mths. These cash payouts are strictly confidential. The PM decides the amount for the whole cabinet.PM Lee has even admitted that in 1 year he paid 3 Ministers the max 11 mths P bonus (ST report).

I dislike Opposition parties that unjustifiably try to claim credit for any change in Government policy. Many people have been calling for a reduction in ministerial salaries, not just the SDP. It is clear that this change of heart was motivated by the election results rather than SDP's past statements.

So please, be a credible party and refrain from making silly self-serving statements like how the Government has "heeded SDP's call".

Already Gerard Ee has started to display symptoms of the Establishment:

http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20110523-280265.html

[Quote]

What about those who point out that Singapore's PM is earning much more than the US president, arguably the most powerful man in the world?

His reply was swift: "That's not comparing apples with apples."

The US president's expenses are all borne by taxpayers, including his housing, staffers and travel on Air Force One, the presidential private jet.

Past commanders-in-chief like Bill Clinton can make lots of money even after they leave office, which is something that home-grown office holders do not do.

"Our politicians travel on commercial planes and have to pay for expenses for their security guards out of their own pockets. It's something that Singaporeans do not appreciate,"Mr Ee said.

[Endquote]

In his pathetic attempt to undersacore alleged differences bewteen the US and Singapore, Gerard Ee claims that the US President's staffers are paid by the American taxpayer. Is he implying that the staff assigned to the PM and other cabinet ministers are given are not? Worse, when he says that our politicians 'pay for expenses for their security guards out of their own pockets'.

Just how true is that?

On the issue of the US President's mode of transport, just to give readers a bit of an insight into American politics, one of the demands their electorate makes on the president is that he be home for the majority of the time to pay attention to the issues at home. And most of the time, his trips for which his private jet is required, are within the US. You can be sure that any American President who jetsets around the world like Singapore's ministers do to live up to the image they have of themselves as a super elite group with opulaent lifestyles, will be voted out - it's a guarantee. Americans have no tolerance if there were to be such a president.

There is also a security element to this: American presidents are always a target for assasination. The private jet is the insurance that the American people are willing to bear responsibility for to ensure his safety.

Can the same be said about the Nobodys that our politicians are?

Assuming such proposed changes represent government's truthfully acknowledging that they had been wrong or not totally right about things all along, it all implies something very disturbing as regards the character or ability of especially establishment personnel who have been put in charge of implementing governance.

Such "leaders", as those heading statutary boards, perm secs, etc., highly ranked civil servants, university CEOs and deans, and media editors also, who should have been the first and most vocal at noticing that things that have not been all right and needed "transforming" (with all the pay they have been getting for, among other things, their "talents" at "forward planning", etc.), have kept very quiet, nay have even been flattering the clothes of the naked king.

Either they have been merely unthinking takers of instructions, or they knew but chose not to "beard the king" for their own selfish career.

We may wonder what PM Lee should do with them now! Obviously he can't rely on them now to carry out his "transformations"?

This is a response to Rex above:

FYI, the SDP had vehemently disagreed with the PAP Govt from the very start in 1994 in Parliament when newly-installed PM GCT mooted or rather "demanded" a doubling-up of Ministerial salaries overnight. The PM then was to get about $1.3 million whilst the other Ministers close to a million.

I remembered then PM GCT told then SDP MP Ling How Doong; "Don't indulge in the politics of envy!" to which MP Ling famously replied: "Envy? No!...My party is against the politics of GREED!"
At one 1997GE rally there was also an SDP candidate who calculated the per-day salary of a Minister....and told the crowd " Our PAP Ministers are getting "$4,000 PER DAY now. How many of you are getting $4,000 per month?"

Since 1994 if you care to check the records- the SDP has been continuously and relentlessly bringing out their distaste of the humongous salaries of PAP ministers in Parliament, in their talks,website, newletters, podcasts and most recently Dr CSJ's hokkien pre-GE youtube message where "$10,000 per day" was the highlight..... That is a continuous period of 17 YEARS!

I recall clearly Dr Chee Soon Juan once said in a rally "It's now $1.2 million for the PM..... but don't hold your breath whether or not it will grow over the years ahead" How prophetic he was.....it's now $3.7 million for PM Lee, a 3-fold jack-up (300%-a familiar percentage number?) over 17 years.

So, Mr Rex, ... isn't it quite fair to give the SDP the credit for the current review (hopefully significantly downwards) of the Ministerial salaries?

After all is said and recommended, if the ministers salaries just reduce by a small % and the salary of the common workers stay the same, i say that PM LEE Hsien LOong is just playing buy-time politic.

Social compact cannot be equivalent to commercial contract. If PAP ministers don't agree with this insight then all of them can stay in the private sector and let real citizens with real desire and heart to improve and empower the people livelihood to step into the Parliament house for good.

Just remembered one more aspect that usually doesn't come up in discussions of ministerial pay: CPF contributions, and especially employers` - ie. taxpayers` - contribution which I regard as welfare.

Singaporeans will recall that it makes Lim Swee Say feel very rich. I wonder why the richest people in the land are entitled to this welfare when the poorest don`t have anything comparable.

Also, they do receive pension which is as much for retirement as one`s own CPF contributions.

The members of the ministers salaries Review Committee are people who are close to the government or the PAP. Almost all of them come from the rich elite class.

They have been told up front, via the Terms of Reference, to use ‘comparable jobs in the private sector’ as benchmarks, and then take a discount. In other words, they have no freedom to use other benchmarks e.g. salaries of political heads, ministers in US, Europe, Asia, etc for comparison. LHL has dictated to Gerald Ee's committee that the only relevant benchmark is ‘the private sector’.
Friends from Mercer Consultants & Hays tell me the salary of top management in major industries in the private sector (i.e. the 'comparable jobs') had a hefty across the board increase in 2010. Recall too that ministers' salaries were raised some 26% or so earlier. So, even if the Committee proposes a reduction of 50% from Ministers' current salaries, the net effect is still millions of dollars for ministers. But many non-numerate, naive Singaporeans will hail it as a reform. LHL wants to implement the Committee's recommendations as soon as it is submitted and cleared by government. It is doubtful if there will be any parliamentary debate on it.
Several astute observers have already pointed out that Gerald Ee was included in every transportation fare increase. An ex-Nominated MP, Gerald is the son of distinguished philanthropist, Ee Peng Lian.
Yet another notable is Stephen Lee Ching Yen who works with the government elite. An ex-Nominated MP (NMP), he was, and still is on numerous government related companies eg DBS, SIA & Temasek. He had been Chairman of SIA and CEO of Trade Development Board earlier.
George Quek, Breadtalk's CEO had the dubious record of being arrested for drunken driving, crashing into a police car.
Top bracket lawyer Lucien Wong of Allen & Gledhill is also Chairman of the Maritime & Port Authority, a government Statutory board of prestige & influence. Lucien’s law firm represented the PAP in several defamation suits against the Opposition.
Minister Shanmugam also came from the same elite law firm.
Venture Corp’s CEO Wong Ngit Liong, is ranked by Forbes as amongst Singapore’s wealthiest. He is also Chairman of the National University’s Board of Trustees. Many recall Wong’s wife slapping SIA girl.
Ditto for Fan Ai Lian who sits on dozens of Boards with direct or indirect links to government.
I leave it to others to enlighten us on the qualifications of the other esteemed Committee members.
Given the intertwined mutual interests of these people with the government, how independent can their review be? Having some members of the Opposition on the Committee would go a long way to assuring Singaporeans that LHL is sincere when he proclaimed that there are no sacred cows that cannot be openly challenged.