| Singapore Boosts Pay for Officials... Again |
|
|
Tag it:
| Written by Our Correspondent | |
| Tuesday, 18 December 2007 | |
|
The world’s highest-paid public servants get a second round of pay increases with the New Year
The government kicked off furious public discussion in April, when the Singapore Public Service Division announced pay rises that gave Lee a 25.5 percent increase, to S$3.1 million. In response to the furor, Lee at the time announced he would donate his pay raise to charity and hold his current level of pay for five years. The Singapore government has long taken the stance that public officials should receive pay commensurate with the top of the country’s business elite, both to attract top talent and to forestall any temptation towards corruption. On a conventional level, the latter has worked. There have been almost no scandals attached to Singaporean ministers for decades. At the very top of the salary pyramid is Singapore President S R Nathan, whose salary will rise to S$3.8 million (US$2.6 million). The Public Service Division’s revised salary package gives starting-grade ministers a salary of S$1.94 million (US$1.32 million). Rank-and-file ministers and the republic’s top civil servants will receive salary increases of 4 percent. Allowances for Members of Parliament are also set to increase, to S$225,000 a year, a 4 percent jump. One angry Singapore blogger posted salaries for other international politicians. In addition to Bush, US Vice President Richard Cheney receives US$202,900 annually, cabinet secretaries range from US$157,000 to 186,600. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown receives the equivalent of US$170,556 and his cabinet ministers receive the equivalent of US$146,299. Newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Australia receives US$137,060, the Deputy Prime Minister get US$111,439 and the treasurer is paid US$102,682. The Singaporean Minister in charge of the Civil Service, Teo Chee Hean told reporters last week that the increases are in keeping with April's announcement. “Public sector salaries move up and down with the market. In this tight labor market, private sector salaries have moved up significantly, as the benchmark figures show. The service needs to follow promptly in order to attract and retain good people,” said Teo. He added that actual pay is tied to individual performance and the performance of the economy. Some 50 percent of public servants’ annual salaries at senior levels are performance based. At that, the public services department said, the current round of salary increases only bring wages for level-four ministers to 77 percent of private sector benchmarks to which they are pegged. The benchmark, the department said, is set at two-thirds of the median pay for the top eight earners in the fields of banking, law, engineering and accounting and top executives with multinationals and local manufacturers. At age 55, serving Singaporean ministers may collect both their salaries and their full pensions if they have held office for a minimum of eight years under a complex formula for determining the amount, capped at two thirds of the highest annual salary of any public office held by the individual. Lee Hsien Loong, in answer to questions in Parliament in 2004, said eight cabinet ministers currently receive both salaries. Comments
(30)
Senior Officer of BRUNEI AGC is Haraser
written by Mr^Mohammad , May 01, 2008
Hi. I would like to tell about my friend's experience with working with the AGC of Brunei. Although he worked with discipline and work determinely, the problem was that he was harassed. This man who is in his 40's has given so many punishment to the worker. He even kicked his legs and beat him on his arm until it swollen. Too bad that he could not do anything but only told her friends and myself. There are currently no laws in brunei that act on harassment on workers so if any counsels from Brunei read this, please ensure that there will be one laws on protecting civil servants from harassment and misconduct. I am pleased with other countries laws that punish those who harasee people in their works.
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Why does the Sultan of Brunei has 3 positions?
written by MrJay , January 04, 2008
If anyone could answer this simple question. Why is the Sultan of Brunei has 3 ministerial posts? I think this is unfair for some and i wish that i could be a cabinet minister one day. The reasons are the Sultan of Brunei is one of the wealthiest man in the world so the point is he has the money to buy things but he is very stingy. The second reason is Brunei has sufferred very heavily due to Prince Jefri who lives in exile due to financial scandal. He has bring many bruneians to become poor. I do not think he will return all the state's assets. The conclusion is the sultan should resign 2 posts as he is holding now for the reasons above and also take Prince Jefri to imprisonment. That's all i can say.
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
As they say
written by Irene Puah , December 26, 2007
...Singapore has the best politicians money can buy
Votes: -4
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 26, 2007
It seems that the cost of living in Bermuda is very high and there are some 19% of the population below poverty line as of 2000. In Singapore, the poverty rate is probably just a few percent or none. The high GDP in Bermuda may not translate into high incomes for the people. That is to say, the corporations may generate a lot of business activities in Bermuda which accounts for the high GDP but little income may be derived by the working people. The cost of housing is also very high in Bermuda and I don't know if there is any government aid in housing. On the other hand some 85% of the Singaporeans live in government housings which is relatively cheap at some S$1 per sq ft. in monthly rental. The purchase price for government housing is also relatively low around S$100,000 to S$150,000 per unit. There is convenient public transportation and many shopping malls with easy access from all housing divisions. I don't know if Bermuda is so well planned.
Votes: +0
http://www.singapore.alloexpat.com/singapore_information/housing_in_singapore.php https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bd.html report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 26, 2007
TheWrathOfGrapes wrote:
Votes: +0
Liang1, you forgot the country with the highest per capita in the world - Bermuda. /// Bermuda enjoys the highest per capita income in the world, more than 50% higher than that of the US. Its economy is primarily based on providing financial services for international business and luxury facilities for tourists./// So, Liang1, by your reckoning, the Bermuda Premier should be paid, what US$7 million per year? ------------------------------ Liang’s response: Bermuda is not a country but a colony (British). The salary of the governor is not paid by the citizens of the islands. In fact there are no citizens but only British subjects. Most of the financial companies and businesses and hotels operating in Bermuda are not owned by the island residents. They are owned by international companies. Of the some 400 stocks traded on the island stock exchange, there are few if any stocks belonging to the locally owned companies. Most are international “offshore funds and alternative investment structures”. Therefore, the government of Bermuda are not working for the “citizens” of Bermuda but for the British government and mostly benefit the international multinational corporations. I don’t know what the salary of the Bermuda governor is. Maybe you can tell us. As to what his salary should be? I think it should be equivalent to the salary of head of a small corporation. Maybe around a few hundred thousand US dollars. The policies of Bermuda government are not made by the governor but by the British government. Therefore, the job of the Bermuda governor is not to make policies but to carry them out. On the other hand, the job of the Singapore government officials is to make innovative policies to keep Singapore dynamic under very hostile and perilous conditions. Therefore, the Singapore government officials deserve the salaries of corporate executives of very large corporations. The benefits accrued from the policies go to the people of Singapore. Therefore, the salaries of the Singaporeans officials should be proportional to the very large GDP of Singapore which is the direct result of their competence. In Bermuda, the benefits of the government policies go to the British government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda#Economy report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by TheWrathOfGrapes , December 25, 2007
Liang1, you forgot the country with the highest per capita in the world - Bermuda.
Votes: +0
/// Bermuda enjoys the highest per capita income in the world, more than 50% higher than that of the US. Its economy is primarily based on providing financial services for international business and luxury facilities for tourists./// So, Liang1, by your reckoning, the Bermuda Premier should be paid, what US$7 million per year? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bd.html report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 25, 2007
Luxemborg, Iceland, Ireland, San Marino, and Isle of Man.
Votes: +0
Countries with smaller population, larger per capita GDP and oil are: Qatar and Kuwait. =================== I just want to emphasize that the only countries smaller than Singapore and have bigger per capita GDP are the 7 listed above. And 2 of them are rich due to oil. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 25, 2007
Moldova:
Votes: +0
Population: #120 4,205,747 2005 Per capita household expenditure: #108 US$437.101 2000 Per capita GDP: #44 US$2,374.00 =================== Error: The Moldova per capita GDP should be US$600. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 25, 2007
stanlaurel wrote:
Votes: +0
Liang1a, you are obviously a Singaporeamerican  I understand your disposition to compare the city state with its "neighbor" - or rather "mother". But the comparison doesn't hold. City states aka small economic, and social units are easy to administer and control. Feel free to look around the world and/or check history books. The comparison IS between apples and...pineapples. Your statistics and numbers are irrelevant unless you compare them to those of other city states like Monaco, Antigua, Luxembourg, etc... ========================= I give the data below which are self-explanatory. Singapore compares favorably either with large countries or with small countries. Very small countries, especially with lots of oil like Brunei or Arab oil countries such as Kuwai and United Arab Emirates are very rich. But only a very few very small countries without oil like Isle of Man and San Marino have bigger per capita GDP than Singapore. Singapore ranks 26 in terms of per capita GDP and 27 in terms of household expenditure. Countries without oil and with larger per capita GDP are: Luxemborg, Iceland, Ireland, San Marino, and Isle of Man. Countries with smaller population, larger per capita GDP and oil are: Qatar and Kuwait. Even Saudi Arabis with population of 23 million has smaller per capita GDP (US$13,399) than Singapore. Frankly I question why you people keep trying to put Singapore down? Is this due to some kind of insecurity? Or simple petty arrogance and unwilling to see an Asian country doing so well? ------------------------------ http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_pop-people-population http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hou_fin_con_exp_cur_us_percap-expenditure-current-us-per-capita http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-per-capita Singapore: Population: #118 4,341,800 2005 Per capita household expenditure: #27 US$11,280.529 2005 Per capita GDP: #26 US$26,892.925 2005 Antigua and Barbuda: Population: #191 82,786 2005 Per capita household expenditure: #50 : US$4,573.123 2002 Per capita GDP: #53 US$10,578.496 2005 Luxembourg: Population: #165 456,709.6 2005 Per capita household expenditure: #2 US$31,702.421 2005 Per capita GDP: #1 US$66,821.00 Costa Rica: Population: #119 4,327,228 2005 Per capita household expenditure: #54 US$2,851.671 2005 Per capita GDP: #82 US$4,626.699 2005 Moldova: Population: #120 4,205,747 2005 Per capita household expenditure: #108 US$437.101 2000 Per capita GDP: #44 US$2,374.00 Puerto Rico: Population: #125 3,912,054 2005 Per capita GDP: #38 US$17,685.267 2001 Guyana: Population: #157 751,218 2005 Per capita GDP: #136 US$1,047.516 2005 Bhutan: Population: #159 636,638 2005 Per capita GDP: #128 US$1,325.301 2005 report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by stanlaurel , December 24, 2007
Liang1a, you are obviously a Singaporeamerican
Votes: +0
I understand your disposition to compare the city state with its "neighbor" - or rather "mother". But the comparison doesn't hold. City states aka small economic, and social units are easy to administer and control. Feel free to look around the world and/or check history books. The comparison IS between apples and...pineapples. Your statistics and numbers are irrelevant unless you compare them to those of other city states like Monaco, Antigua, Luxembourg, etc... report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 24, 2007
SG Resident wrote:
Votes: +0
But have you forgotten the favourable trade policies as well as the non-commitment to global militay and environmental affairs that a big country has to adhere to? Liang’s response: What favorable trade policies are you talking about? Small countries generally can’t get favorable trade policies. It is the big countries with a lot of clouts that get the favorable trade policies. As to the military expenditure, Singapore is one of the biggest spenders in terms of GDP (5% or US$7,053,000,000 for 2007) and in terms of percentage of budget - approximate 20% to 25%. (For 1998, according to one source, Singapore’s military spending as a percentage of expenditure was 26.69%.) Compare this to Malaysia’s expected military expenditure at US$1,690,000,000. Singapore is No. 22 in the absolute amount of military spending. It spends more than Mexico - US$6,070,000,000 - and Pakistan - US$4,800,000,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_countries_and_federations_by_military_expenditu res http://www.fas.org/irp/world/98_amiex3.html As far as I know, Singapore is fairly good in terms of pollution. If you have specific ranking figure that shows Singapore is a bad polluter in total amount or in per capita amount, please give the figure and the link for independent verification. ================================ SG Resident wrote: The very fact of perceived fragility of Singapore state turned it into its advantage economically. Liang’s response: Where is the supporting facts and logic? ================================= SG Resident wrote: Let's just put it that the Singapore's politican's grasp of power is much stronger than the countries we are comparing here that laws can be passed easily to suit their desires. You can compare it to political power of China's President, Russia's Putin. Or rather, just next door: Malaysia. Overpriced mega projects without tenders, monopoly licences without tenders, APs ,use of military explosives and deletion of entry records of murdered Altantuya, and most importantly, we know they get what they want. Case closed! Liang’s response: Singapore politicians’ grasp on power is probably much stronger than in other countries. But as far as I can see the laws passed resulted in a dynamic economy and an orderly society with low crimes. There is certainly no evidence of misuse of power. Singapore has regular elections where the Singapore citizens are free to vote for whomever they want. As far as I know the elections are clean. And there are also opposition parties who garner a significant portion of the votes cast - from 20% to more than 30%. For 2006 the PAP won 45 of 47 contested seats, with 66.6% of the vote. This means the opposition won some 33.3% of the vote. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Action_Party There is absolutely no similarity between Singapore and China in terms of political freedom and the power of the ruling political party. China is ruled absolutely by the CPC with no hope of being voted out of power. If the ruling Singapore party - PAP - should ever failed to maintain prosperity and orderliness there is very little doubt that the Singaporean voters would vote them out. The CPC in China could never be voted out through electoral process. I don’t know what you are trying to say with the Malaysia comparison. Singapore is much more corruption free than Malaysia. I’ve never heard of any scandals or corruption in Singapore. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by SG Resident , December 23, 2007
Liang1a,
Votes: +0
You said: Singapore has very little land area. It is so small that it can’t even grow its own food. On the other hand, Australia has one of the biggest land areas in the world - more than twice that of India - with many natural resources. To compare Australia with Singapore is like comparing a man with a big trust fund with a man with nothing but his wit. Given the lack of land and resources Singapore leaders have to overcome much greater difficulties to give Singaporeans the same level of standard of living of the Australians which would obviously require much greater competencies on the part of the Singaporean government leaders. But have you forgotten the favourable trade policies as well as the non-commitment to global militay and environmental affairs that a big country has to adhere to? The very fact of perceived fragility of Singapore state turned it into its advantage economically. Let's just put it that the Singapore's politican's grasp of power is much stronger than the countries we are comparing here that laws can be passed easily to suit their desires. You can compare it to political power of China's President, Russia's Putin. Or rather, just next door: Malaysia. Overpriced mega projects without tenders, monopoly licences without tenders, APs ,use of military explosives and deletion of entry records of murdered Altantuya, and most importantly, we know they get what they want. Case closed! report abuse
vote down
vote up
Poverty in Singapore probably been eradicated.
written by Liang1a , December 22, 2007
I think the reason poverty rate for Singapore is not found anywhere is probably because poverty has been eradicated in Singapore. Only some 11% of the households earn less than S$1,000 per month. But it seems that S$1,000 is more than enough to support expenditure for an adequate level of living. So maybe this is why the poverty rate is given as n/a for not applicable in CIA world fact book.
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 22, 2007
Below is a quote from the link indicated. As can be seen from the numbers given, poverty is very low even in 1984 at 7.4% of all households and 7.2% of all persons. Since then the incomes of Singaporeans have increased significantly. So the incidence of poverty should be lower than that of 1984. It is most probable that the poverty rate in Singapore is now in the low single digit.
Votes: +0
Anybody who can post a definitive authoritative poverty figure for Singapore would be appreciated. ======================================== http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The Poor in Singapore: Issues and Options-a070637974 The 1954 poverty line was based on one employed male, a homemaker and two children under 12 years old. The household maintenance expenditure reflected the lifestyle of the late 1940s to mid 1950s. The situation from the early 1970s is very different, and the need for a revised absolute poverty line became apparent. The Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) worked out such a poverty line in 1974, which amounted to S$240 per month per household for a family of four or an average of S$60 per head in 1974 or S$120 per head in 1984 prices (Lira, 198  . The AUPE poverty line of S$120 may be considered as a moderate poverty line and the earlier S$229 per household poverty line as indicating extreme poverty. The 1974 poverty line can be applied to the 1984 data because the lifestyles are broadly similar between 1974 and 1984. Table 2 shows that poverty declined from 30% in 1974 to 15% in 1984. Table 2: Incidence of absolute poverty based on AUPE poverty line, 1974-84 Percentage of households in absolute poverty Household size 1974 1978 1984 2-4 persons 25.4 13.4 7.7% 5-7 persons 31.9 15.3 7.3% 8 persons 34.5 16.3 6.8% All Households 30.8 14.8 7.4% All Persons 31.9 15.1 7.2% report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 22, 2007
TheWrathOfGrapes,
Votes: +0
I have provided some data below. As you can see from the per household member monthly income, the amounts have all increased from 1997 to 2006. If the per household member income had all increased, the household monthly income must also have increased over the same period. Perhaps you can give the exact link from where you got your data so that everybody interested can go to that webpage for verification. The average size per Singapore household is 3.6. Therefore, even the poorest household would have an average monthly income of some S$1,080. This would mean that the poverty rate is very low in Singapore. Also I’ve given the monthly household income 2002/2003 below for your information. ===================================== Monthly household income 2002/2003 http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/hhld/hes2003.pdf Below S$1,000 11.5% of all households 1,000 - 1,499 8.2% 1,500 - 1,999 8.8% 2,000 - 2,499 8.5% 2,500 - 2,999 7.3% 3,000 - 3,999 13.4% 4,000 - 4,999 9.8% 5,000 - 5,999 7.9% 6,000 - 6,999 5.6.% 7,000 - 9,999 9.6% 10,000 and over 9.3% -------------------------------- Total 100% of household ===================== The data below show the income from work per household member among employed households by dectile. In all cases the incomes have increased from 1997 to 2006. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/op-s12.pdf Monthly income from work per household member Dectile 1997 2000 2005 2006 1st - 10th S$290 290 270 300 11th - 20th 270 490 510 540 21st - 30th 630 660 700 750 31st - 40th 790 830 900 960 report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by TheWrathOfGrapes , December 21, 2007
Liang1a,
Votes: +0
Statistics from SingStats on Household Income: Household Inc 1998 2003 Change Lowest 20% 933 795 -14.8% 2nd Quintile 2,118 2,059 -2.8% 3rd Quintile 3,374 3,379 0.1% 4th Quintile 5,162 5,309 2.8% Highest 20% 11,450 12,792 11.7% Within 5 years, the lowest quintile of household income fell 14.8% from S$933 in 1998 to S$795 in 2003. On the other hand, the highest quintile increased by 11.7% from S$11,450 in 1998 to S$12,792 in 2003. Bear in mind this is in Singapore Dollars and for the whole household. Even if only one person per household is employed, S$795 is probably at or near the poverty line. If both adults work, the average per capita will be less than S$400. And if any of the children contributes to the household income, the average per wage earner is even lower. The rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 21, 2007
Since wealth is more evenly distributed in Singapore than America, it should be expected that there are fewer Singaporeans living below the poverty line than America. Therefore, if America has 12% of its people living below the poverty line, then Singapore should have a smaller percentage of its people living below the poverty line. Therefore, there are many rational arguments supported by specific data, in the absence of credible poverty line data, to show that the percentage of Singaporeans living below the poverty cannot be as much as 30% and should be less than 12%. Indeed all credible data would support a much smaller percentage of Singaporeans living below the poverty line than Americans.
Votes: +0
In conclusion, since I’m not a Singaporean don’t judge the Singaporeans by my statements. If you think I’m opinionated and brash, then it is the opinionatedness and the brashness of an American. Frankly, I think a true Singaporean would have been much more circumspect than I in responding to you. Or, being wise, they’d simply shrug it off as no more important than the passing wind and let it pass without responding to you at all. After all, they are very secure in the knowledge of their achievements and their bright future. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 21, 2007
SKL,
Votes: +0
Let me first correct your misapprehension that I’m a Singaporean. I’m not a Singaporean. I’m an American though I have many close relatives living in Singapore. Incidentally, I’ve also have many friends and relatives living in Malaysia and Australia. While you pretend to be so objective and fair-minded the truth is you are nothing but condescending and judgmental. Furthermore, your opinions are formed based on bias and prejudice and erroneous facts. Where did you get the idea that Singapore is insecure? Why are you so eager to portray Singapore as a “little boy” while presenting the West as represented by Australia as MAN? And while you portray yourself as respecting my “opinion”, yet you refuse to believe in the specific facts compiled by the CIA of America when they show Singapore to be superior to Australia and various European countries. In short, you call me “opinionated” because I give you specific facts to show you that you were wrong. You simply cannot accept the fact that Singapore is every bit as advanced, and superior in some respects, as Australia and various other European countries. It is obvious to anybody who is truly objective that it is you who are the opinionated and insecure one. That is to say, you cannot feel secure unless the West is superior to Singapore. As to $1,300 per month being the poverty line in Singapore, I doubt this very much. Minimum wage in America is around $12,000 a year or $1,000 per month. Minimum wage is suppose to be the poverty line. The cost of living is obviously higher in America than in Singapore. Therefore, the poverty line should be lower in Singapore than in America. It is simple logic, therefore, that $1,300 cannot be the poverty line in Singapore. So how could a Singaporean making $1,300 per month be living below poverty line? The percentage of American living below poverty line is 12% (2004 est.). Therefore, it is not possible that there could be as much as 30% of the Singaporeans living below the poverty line. You can see this data at the following link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html Unfortunately, neither Singapore and Australia is listed in the list. But a good indicator of wealth distribution is the Gini index or Gini coefficient which is defined as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient “Thus, a low Gini coefficient indicates more equal income or wealth distribution, while a high Gini coefficient indicates more unequal distribution. 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone having exactly the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, while everyone else has zero income).” Distribution of family income - Gini index: America: 45 (2004) Singapore: 42.5 (199 Australia: 35.2 (1994) (To be continued) report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by lll , December 21, 2007
SKL,
Votes: +0
I have just read through all the comments and it sure is getting very interesting. Your writings send out very strong messages which I don't think that they have been received. I have the inkling that you refrained from passing judgment based on perceptions and if I am not wrong, that is precisely the message that you were trying to bring across. You are fair minded and respectful of others opinions and do not take words at surface value. Wherelse Liang1a's comments are opinionated based on perceived circumstances - like insecurities, hostilities, etc - and stats at surface value. Such a contrast!! Perhaps, let me explain what I meant by the 'small man syndrome'. It is putting other people down to make oneself looks good and try to portray a favourable but false impression of oneself. To put it bluntly, I have great distaste and disrespect for such actions. A reminder, 'good products do not need extensive advertisement'. Good on you, mate! report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by SKL , December 20, 2007
Liang1,
Votes: +0
I respect your thoughts. I don't realise that Singapore is such an insecured state, despite all the rhetorics of goodness that has come out of her. I recommend that you read 'The Singapore Miracle - Myth and Reality' by Rodney King if you can get it in Singapore. There are plenty of statistics, analysis, comments and the authors' observation. Well, do I accept them totally? - 'No'. Does it have any credibility? - 'Probable' but it definitely raises its level, as the author cared to name personalities in a state famous for defamation proceedings. It may give you an insight of Singapore from outside. Of course, you don't have to agree with me. We have different reference point and different sources of information. For example, definition of poverty which you find it hard to belief. According to King, 29.55% of Singaporeans earn less than $1300 p/m in 2001 which he classified as poverty and if reference to Australian cutoff point of $1500 p/m, if goes as high as 37% and according to King the PPP is only slightly lower in Singapore. Reference it to today, I don't think it changes drastically. I prefer the lower end 30% than the 37% suggested. Of course you can dismiss the informaton. Well, I live in a 'fair go' society, everyone is given a choice of opinion. Likewise, I find it hard to equate 'pay' with 'performance' at top level professionals. Does it mean that I preform at 60% if I am pay 60% of my entitlement? Again the concept of losing a good politician. Does it mean a good politician is a excellent corporate manager? This brings to thought whether Singaporean view politics as a profession or a conviction to serve. From the writing I can sense the phobia of 'insecurity' and 'holding on'. So true, when King described the 'kiasu' and 'kiasi' phobia. It is difficult to progress if one holds on to pass 'use by date' concept. Good Luck Singapore. report abuse
vote down
vote up
Check your facts, please
written by Leman Rus , December 20, 2007
It's very disappointing to see journalists taking liberties with easily checked facts. Your "Correspondent" quotes an unnamed blogger "Newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Australia receives US$137,060.." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...lia#Salary says he earns AUD 330,300 (USD 284,332). Is this journal expecting its readers to take it seriously?
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 20, 2007
SKL wrote:
Votes: +0
Can I or should I conclude the competencies of your politicians? Liang’s response: As I explained above, the Singaporean leaders have to overcome much greater difficulties to give the Singaporean people the same level of standard of living as the Australians. On the other hand who can say for certain that if the conditions were reversed, the Australian politicians can still maintain its current standard of living. If all the Australians were herded into an area just 1,000 square miles in size and relocated right next to hostile countries that would love to see it collapse, can you guarantee that the Australian politicians have the competency to still maintain the same level of standard of living? So how does that reflect on the relative competencies of the politicians of the two countries? ---------------------------------------------- SKL wrote: Are you aware that as much as 30% of Singaporean are living in poverty by western standard compared to Australia 8%? Can I or should I attributed these to the competencies of your politicians? Liang’s response: Frankly, I don’t believe this. You’re probably still getting your facts wrong like above where you claim erroneously that Australia’s GDP is 10 times that of Singapore. You’d have to provide some credible data to prove your contention. --------------------------------------------- SKL wrote: Don't be a 'MAN among third-world countries' and 'BOY among developed-countries'. Stand up, be a 'MAN among MEN' Liang’s response: Singapore is a MAN among even the developed countries. Its per capita GDP in terms of PPP - purchasing power parity - is actually greater than that of France and Italy and equal to that of UK. And remember that Singapore leaders have achieved this under much greater inimical conditions than that faced by the other developed countries, especially Australia. Therefore, it is easy to see that the Singaporean leaders are much more competent than the politicians of the other developed countries, especially those of Australia. At the same time you have to ask yourself what would happen if the salaries were decreased? Would the very competent leaders leave the government to take up jobs in even higher paying positions with corporations? Then what would happen to Singapore? report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 20, 2007
SKL wrote:
Votes: +0
A country (Australia) with only slightly higher per capita income, 10 times your GDP, Politicians' salaries up to 20 times less Population of 4 times more. Liang’s response: Australia: Total GDP: US$644.7 billion (2006 est.) Per capita GDP: US$31,600 (official exchange rate) Per capita GDP (PPP): $33,300 (2006 est.) Singapore: Total GDP: US$122 billion (2006 est.) Per capita GDP: US$27,000 (official exchange rate) Per capita GDP (PPP): $31,400 (2006 est.) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html#Econ https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html#Econ From the above data, it is obvious that you are wrong to presume that the GDP of Australia is 10 times that of Singapore. Moreover, the significant factor is the per capita GDP and especially the per capita GDP in terms of the PPP which best indicates the actual quality of life. The two equal per capita GDP (PPP) would indicate that the quality of life for the Singaporeans and the Australians are practically the same. Furthermore, the rate of growth of Singapore is much greater than that of Australia: Singapore: 7.9% Australia: 2.7% Unemployment rate is also significantly less than that of Australia: Singapore: 3.1% Australia: 4.9% Singapore has very little land area. It is so small that it can’t even grow its own food. On the other hand, Australia has one of the biggest land areas in the world - more than twice that of India - with many natural resources. To compare Australia with Singapore is like comparing a man with a big trust fund with a man with nothing but his wit. Given the lack of land and resources Singapore leaders have to overcome much greater difficulties to give Singaporeans the same level of standard of living of the Australians which would obviously require much greater competencies on the part of the Singaporean government leaders. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 20, 2007
SKL wrote:
Votes: +0
Liang1a, I am not here to comment on the salary. What strike me is the justification and the comparison. I certainly do not expect from a supposedly intellectual society and this is not the first time I come across. It is like comparing 'apples with oranges'. Singapore has, for a long time, claimed to be a 'first-world' country. Why compare yourself to 'third-world' and developing countries? Why don't you pick countries of you own standing and use the same type of conclusion you have reached? Let's take Australia, Liang’s response: In choosing to compare Singapore and Malaysia I was indeed comparing an apple with another apple. Or a durian with another durian. This is because the two countries are right next door to each and has more or less the same cultural, racial, geopolitical, and other conditions while having much less land area and natural resources. In comparing Singapore with Malaysia it is much easier to see clearly the superior competency of the Singaporean leaders. On the other hand, to compare Singapore with Australia would indeed actually be comparing an apple with an orange. When you are comparing two countries, especially the governments of two countries, you would want to keep all conditions as similar as possible so that the difference in achievements could be attributed to the competencies of the relative governments and not to other conditions. But even comparing Singapore with Australia, Singapore has demonstrated that it is every bit just as advanced as Australia while having to achieve the same advanced level under much more difficult conditions. Therefore, comparing Singapore with Australia would clearly show that that the Singaporean leaders are superior to that of the Australian politicians. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by lll , December 20, 2007
SKL,
Votes: +1
You have hit the nail on the head. It is about time for Singaporeans to get out of their 'small man syndrome' and grow up. report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by SKL , December 19, 2007
Liang1a,
Votes: +0
I am not here to comment on the salary. What strike me is the justification and the comparison. I certainly do not expect from a supposedly intellectual society and this is not the first time I come across. It is like comparing 'apples with oranges'. Singapore has, for a long time, claimed to be a 'first-world' country. Why compare yourself to 'third-world' and developing countries? Why don't you pick countries of you own standing and use the same type of conclusion you have reached? Let's take Australia, A country with only slightly higher per capita income, 10 times your GDP, Politicians' salaries up to 20 times less Population of 4 times more. Can I or should I conclude the competencies of your politicians? Australian politician's assets are on public records. Are Singaporean's? Can I or should I suspect irregularities you have suggested in your last para? Are you aware that as much as 30% of Singaporean are living in poverty by western standard compared to Australia 8%? Can I or should I attributed these to the competencies of your politicians? Don't be a 'MAN among third-world countries' and 'BOY among developed-countries'. Stand up, be a 'MAN among MEN' report abuse
vote down
vote up
MINISTERS HIGH SALARY
written by Jennifer Tan , December 19, 2007
It is now not surprising that our good Lee Hsien Loong is relinquishing his portfolio for the Finance Minister.
Votes: +0
Ever wonder why? With the coming recession and issues, like high inflation, high minister salaries... LHL has now conveniently decided to give up this portfolio to Tharman, a portfolio he gaurded for years? Who is Tharman - his potential scrapegoat in the future for the failures of the financial policies? Jennifer 2007.12.19 report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 19, 2007
Error in prior post:
Votes: +0
The sentence below contains an error. "This is obviously due to the competence of the Malaysian government officials." "Malaysian" should be replaced by "Singaporean". The above sentence should be: "This is obviously due to the competence of the Singaporean government officials." report abuse
vote down
vote up
...
written by Liang1a , December 19, 2007
While Mahathir's and Badawis's official salaries are not high, they are multi-millionairs and probably multi-billionaires. Compared to their net assets, Lee's total net assets are very small. In the end, you get what you pay for. Cheap is not necessarily economical. In the end, you lose more using cheap things. 1% of Singapore's huge GDP is more than US$1 billion. That's many times the total salaries of the top government officials. Compared to Malaysia's and Singapore's economic performance below:
Votes: +0
Malaysia total GDP of US$132 billion Singapore's GDP of US$122 billion Malaysia's per capita GDP: US$5,000 Singapore's per capita GDP: US$27,000 Malaysia's rate of growth: 6% Singapore's rate of growth: 8% From the above comparison, it is obvious that Singapore is doing much better than Malaysia. In fact, Singapore is making some US$22,000 per person more than Malaysia. This is obviously due to the competence of the Malaysian government officials. And if each Singaporean contribute just US$1 to Lee's salary that would be more than US$4.5 million. I think it is worth the money to pay US$1 to get back US$22,000. Or to pay even a couple of hundred US dollars to get back US$22,000. If I were the Singaporeans, I wouldn't complain about the high salaries of the government officials. At least not until the average incomes of the Singaporeans fall below that of the Malaysians. As to the salaries of the US president and vice-presidents, Cheney has ties to the American oil companies. He probably gets a lot of kickbacks that he might be salting away that nobody knows anything about. report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Singaporean ministers and civil servants, already by far the highest-paid public servants in the world, are scheduled to receive a second round of pay raises starting Jan. 1 ranging from 4 percent to 21 percent. The increase will drive Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s salary to S$3.7 million, or US$2.53 million, more than six times that of US President George W. Bush. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
The Risk of Travel in AsiaOur Correspondent A new report by International Risk says it's a jungle out there
Full Story |
| Other Articles |
Alice Poon
| Freedom of Expression Too Precious to Throw AwayThursday, 04 February 2010 | Alice Poon
In a free society, there will always be more than one single opinion. In a free society, it is accepted that everyone should have an equal right to express his/her opinion without fearing... Full Story |
| Previous posts: |
John Elliott: Riding the Elephant
| From vultures in Delhi, to coups in Pakistan, a journalist's un-edited take on current events |
Donate to Asia Sentinel
Archive
- The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is firmly embedded…
- Malaysia State Constitutional Crisis
- Thai Coup Rumors Recur
- House of Cards
- Spy vs. Spy, Internet-style
- Violence Isn't Slowing in Sri Lanka
- Show Time for Malaysia's Anwar
- Obama Stumbles on North Korea
- Policy Takes a Back Seat in Japan
- Criticizing Malaysia's Kings
2. Any talk about whether Singapore has eliminated poverty or achieved any laudable social goals without mentioning the actual literal equalization (to the look of your flat, to where you eat) the government has done on the citizenry is dishonest.