Here are the salaries of 13 major world leaders

Reality is that balance of compensation/ power is an issue globally ever since alpha males appeared. Even in US with SuperPac and lobbying money politics are prevalent. Question is how do you address it, rather than avoid it . Incentive is important but so is disincentive. Politican's pay should not be the incentive... but the heart to serve the people and nation. (LKY did comment that both US and China has drastically different system but they are able to nurture and groom leaders with heart and capability) Point is to disincentivise corruption. There is a difference.

I agree with LKY's pragmatic approach. What I don't agree is the execution.

PS yes the Prez earns more than the PM... like I posted above, it is an asian paradigm that IMHO need to change, but will be long process.

(Bloomberg) -- When Okey Onwa decided to run for a seat in
Nigeria’s House of Representatives, a ruling party leader laid
out the terms to the 52-year-old lawyer.
He would have to pay 2 million naira ($10,048) as an
expression of interest and sign post-dated checks, forfeiting
half of his income as a lawmaker to gain the support of the
party boss, commonly known as a “godfather” in Nigeria.
“When I complained, he told me this was business, that I
can try going it alone if I wanted,” Onwa said in an interview
in Awka, capital of the southeastern state of Anambra. He said
he decided against running because he knew that on his own, he
couldn’t raise the 100 million naira he needed for the campaign.
As Africa’s biggest oil producer prepares to elect a
president and parliament on March 28, at stake for most
politicians is the power to dispense and receive cash and
patronage rather than competing ideologies. The main opposition
party, the All Progressives Congress, has said it will maintain
many of the economic policies of President Goodluck Jonathan’s
ruling People’s Democratic Party.
With annual salaries and benefits of as much as $2 million
a year, Nigeria’s lawmakers earn more than four times Barack
Obama’s salary as U.S. president. Whoever wins the presidency
has a critical say in dispensing about $70 billion a year in
state revenue, more than two-thirds of which comes from oil and
gas exports.

Godfather Control

“There’s no country in the world that has that kind of
remuneration for its lawmakers,” Jibrin Ibrahim, director of
the Abuja-based Centre for Democracy and Development, or CDD,
said in a phone interview. “Money plays such a huge role and
the political process is very expensive, making it for the
richest and not the best. Essentially, the godfathers are the
ones that control the parties and determine candidates.”
Both Jonathan, a 57-year-old southern Christian from the
oil-rich Niger River delta, and his main opponent, Muhammadu
Buhari, a 72-year-old northern Muslim and former military
dictator, have pledged to fight corruption and make the
petroleum industry more transparent.
Corruption has dogged Nigeria’s political system since
independence from the U.K. in 1960. Transparency International
ranked it as the 136th out of 174 countries assessed in its 2014
Corruption Perception Index.
Former central bank Governor Lamido Sanusi was suspended by
Jonathan last year after he alleged that the Nigerian National
Petroleum Corp. hadn’t remitted about $20 billion in oil revenue
to the government.
Highlights of a PriceweaterhouseCoopers LLP audit into the
NNPC said it should refund a minimum of $1.48 billion, with the
state-owned company claiming the report had absolved it of
Sanusi’s allegations. The full PwC audit hasn’t been released.

State Power

“Anyone who has state power controls everything,” said
Jideofor Adibe, a political science lecturer at Nassarawa State
University in the city of Keffi, 60 kilometers (37 miles) east
of the capital, Abuja. “The group that produces the president
can reward itself and punish the others. You can make a
billionaire out of an ordinary man overnight.”
Candidates use funds for their publicity campaigns as well
as to influence “opinion leaders” and potential voters, said
Gozie Agbakoba, who lost his bid to return to the House of
Representatives in 2011 for the Action Congress of Nigeria,
which is now part of the APC.
“I lost because I didn’t share money,” Agbakoba said in
an interview in Abuja. “It’s difficult to win an election in
Nigeria without providing inducements to voters, be it rice,
other gifts or cash.”
Apart from the 109 seats in the Senate and 360 in the House
of Representatives, candidates are also vying for the state
governorships and places in regional legislatures.

Revenue Allocation

Each level of government shares in the oil revenue, with
the national government receiving 52.7 percent, the states 26.7
percent and local councils 20.6 percent.
Of the 36 states, only Lagos, which generates 75 percent of
its own revenue, could survive without the monthly cash
allocations from the central government by trimming spending or
selling bonds, according to National Bureau of Statistics data.
Since more than 70 percent of the federal budget is spent
on recurrent expenses, such as the salaries and benefits of
about a million public officials, there’s little left for
capital investments in infrastructure, health and education.
Many people who would’ve been entrepreneurs in business or
industry seek political office “as a much quicker way to make
money,” Clement Nwankwo, executive director of Abuja-based
Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre, said in an interview.

Tight Election

With the majority of the population poor and without
education, “it’s difficult for citizens to understand the role
of the elected official,” he said. “They measure candidates by
how much they pay.”
This year’s races are set to be the tightest ever, with
both parties having 42 percent support among likely voters,
according to an Afrobarometer poll released Jan. 27. About 68
million people are registered to vote, the electoral agency
said. The vote is being held at a time when cash is especially
tight, with the price of crude having declined more than 50
percent since June, falling below budget projections.
With ideology less important than the battle to control
resources, elections can sometimes be no-holds-barred battles
with candidates and parties employing armed thugs to bludgeon
supporters of opponents, snatch ballots and rig results.
In 2011, about 800 people were killed and at least 75,000
forced to flee their homes after Jonathan’s victory was
announced.
“The big challenge now facing Nigeria is how to make the
welfare of people the purpose of politics,” said Onwa. “Right
now, for the average politician it’s all about how to make
money.”

with the top salaried minister globally, it is also no wonder that sg also becomes the top most expensive globally two years running..
everything here is mark to market...hehe
1 visit to dentist to clean teeth, mark to market
public polyclinic singhealth dental appointment booking can go as far a a year later then can see public dentist...hehe

Quote:For $40k a month I think it is still more than what most of the other leaders in the democratic world are commanding, including USA or China, if you want to compare in terms of pay per capita or per pax.

VB has a lot of rich folks and many of these rich folks are leaders in their respective field.
We probably can do a poll here to see any VB member is willing to sacrifice their privacy for $40k month. Will you? If you are willing, why have you not signing up for it in any political party or you are already in?

I suppose we have to be rhetoric at times to set our mindset correct but ultimately, if the kind of remuneration is not able to attract capable people to come forward, it is meaningless.

It is unfortunate that the remunerations for many professions are much above the median income. We have no mean to stop any corporation from deciding the worth of a person and therefore, the price for a proven capable leader is always much much above the median income.

We can also decide that we give up this segment of proven leaders and go for the second or third rung. So, the next question is, is the second or third rung good for our nation?

On a case study basis, you can find good leaders among 2nd or 3rd rung of respective professions. But, statistically, if the entire cabinet/civil service is composed of leaders that are in the 2nd or 3rd rung of academic results and professional experiences, it is really really not ideal for governing a nation.

Hi Yeokiwi

I think you have to quote me in context. I was answering corydorus assertion below that $millions are cheap. In fact we might even pay them hedge fund manager pay of a billion to save billions

Like i posted, there is a difference between incentive and disincentive. Salary for policy makers cannot be an incentive because then their policy will be driven by $ and you will attract people with that focus. Like Buffett said those with intelligence and energy without integrity are the most dangerous. That is why having good 2nd rung people with right principles might even be better than 1st rung in some cases, up to a point of competence. People who live well yet still focus primarily on growing their piggy bank should not be making policies; they should be hedge fund manager or delta desk traders.

And we have to recognise the fact that corporates are not comparables to elected policy makers. This is a fallacy that has been continuously propagated. They are a competitor for talent is correct, but not comparable in terms of JD, like comparing distressed debt managers to policy makers.

Disincentive is structured so that you will not commit a crime. Key is to pay the policy makers well enough so they have no excuse to extract side money from the populace. LKY is right that corruption will kill a country. We see that historically and live now. Even China is realising that closing one eye is not good enough

The principle of paying policy makers well is correct in principle IMHO, but how high is too high is an execution issue. As usual IMHO 中庸之道. I think 10-20X Median is about reasonable, and your pay increases with the improvement in the common man's livelihood. When you are paid too high and live too high a life, you can't see the ground. That's the other benefit.

Since you asked, I should be technically a member of an opposition party when i signed up more than a decade ago but with their messed up admin, i doubt I'm in their membership roll. I was a voting agent for them once. I would like to think that I am probably marginally above average in walking the talk

(24-03-2015, 01:32 AM)corydorus Wrote: 10x is like max 40K monthly for a PM that run the whole country and million of life get impacted ?
Is not that the country cannot afford. I think LKY laid the foundation of sustainability. High Salary should not be in the equation. A corrupt leader can store away Billions.
A weak leader can cost many more Billions.

Many medium size CEO will beats that amount easily. And this CEO only run like 100k-300k people ... And you see many companies coming up and down like roller coaster. We need sustainability from one leader to the next. I would rather err on the side of higher pay. $5M for a leader is still cheap if we think deeper considering he is the super CEO of all CEOs in the country. I certainly would not mind how much he earns. The key focus I feel should be how we can have better life.

I do not think you get the point. $ is not a consideration to pay our top leaders to me. Therefore incentive or not is out of context since is not a problem paying them high since we can afford it less we feel imbalance ourselves to see people getting high salary.

Running a country is way more important than running a company. I doubt you can attract talents consistently with 10x-20x median over time because you will likely be eliminating a social group of critical class that has higher concentration in business, foresight and connections/exposure to run the country.

You will not get a Warren Buffet type of replacement consistently. He is more of an exception than a norm.

So what do you reckon is not high since we can afford it... $10m each? $100m? $1b? since we have a $60b operating income and power to tax to increase that income.

Should we peg their pay to income or surplus? 1% of income or 10% of surplus? This will induce very different type of policy making if your criteria for policy making is on PnL, just like if u base on mode of 5 top earning sectors. And so TT Durai just make $600k peanuts.

Like I posted above, China and US has system that can generate quality policy makers and talents as well even with lesser income. Either extreme ie pay too much or pay too little has severe consequences in the long run. I believe workers are worth their wages but what is the motivation behind the policy makers are more important than just large salary because if that is the primary motivation you will get into trouble. Remember once upon a time some MPs are "full-time" company directors?

Conversely artificially paying policy makers too low trying to portray a "holier-than-thou" image will eventually cause cognitive dissonance and compel them to seek reimbursement elsewhere.

It is a fine balance with range of answers in the middle but if you extrapolate to either end of the extreme we get ridiculous conclusions with unfortunate observable impacts. key is still 中庸之道

This is a real issue that needs to be addressed. But the principle behind this has to be very clear which I agree with LKY: you have to pay them well enough to disincentivise those in power from corruption. (I'm not as good as Buffett who can actually explain principle of death tax so well) Problem is the execution and comparing to corporates and PnL is definitely barking up the wrong tree. Looks like a tree but it's wrong.

Currently the salary is around $4M annual right ? I don't see an issue unless you are arguing for 100M and 1B.
Looks like a non-issue on the pay. So why are we even debating about it ?

When I am fighting for survival, I make sure I wouldn't bargain as long as price is reasonable, for critical resources to survive. There's too much at stake to compromise, by not paying a reasonable price, IMO.

Next question, is, are the salaries reasonable, to peg with average of Singapore top earners? I reckon it should, since we have targeted for top talents. Any room for a "discount" and "compromises"? May be, but should we?

China system of low paid salary? The new China started in 1949, but we have seen the popularity of the "corruption", even among the top officers. Obviously, the China system needs a overhaul...

(25-03-2015, 03:48 PM)corydorus Wrote: Currently the salary is around $4M annual right ? I don't see an issue unless you are arguing for 100M and 1B.
Looks like a non-issue on the pay. So why are we even debating about it ?

The debate is that I see $40k-$80k a month as a more reasonable gauge pegged to multiple of the median salary of the common man on the street.

I don't agree to pegging to top earners as their JD and motivation is totally different. That has already beginning to show in the cracks of public opinion of policy makers being Elitists. The writings are already on the wall. Many of our founding fathers are English educated but they had their nose to the ground and people knew they stand for meritocracy rather than Elitism. There is a difference.

Well i disagree in Singapore context to have a talent able to run the COUNTRY paid so low. A local medium size CEO earns more than that.