Ministerial pay to be reviewed

[kazukirai]

If there are to be any meaningful revision in the salary of the ministers, the Administrative Service might be affected as well.

The annual remuneration of the permanent secretary is roughly 600-800k. On top of him seats the various politicians, parliamentary secretary, senior parl sect, minister of state, senior minister of state, minister, depute PM, prime minister.

I sure hope so. If there was one sore point I had about the current government prior to the GE and the pending revisions, it is that they were paid too well (regardless of the issue of whether they're doing a good job or not). The whole idea of linking pay to performance is one that is grossly over-simplified.

Then you have the fact that they (in a roundabout way) decide their own pay which spells lack of corporate governance.

And the slap in face is, Lim Swee Say telling everyone else to be 'Cheaper, Better, Faster'. Hopefully, the revisions will reflect public service pay more accurately.

The original pension scheme was designed as a safety net for the various public figures who sacrificed their time for the state (they were not as highly remunerated then). Now that their pay package has been pegged to the highest professions in society, the scheme is obsolete and will be addressed.

And this is why I prefer small government. No matter how smart the people we have (and from my personal experience, there are some really smart people in the civil service), the structure of the machine is set up to be reactive rather than pro-active. Behind the 8-ball so to speak.

[thefarside]

There's something I find very strange among Singaporeans. A lot of people seems to be unable to view the PAP objectively. In one camp, are the supporters who somehow find a way to rationalise that the party had done good for 40 years taking Singapore to where it is today. In another camp there are those who hates them to the core and will vote for anything standing the PAP, even if it is a (insert favorite animal / disgusting pest here) in elections.

To the first group, the PAP of today is nothing like the PAP of yesteryears. The cabinet of 2006 (or even GCT's cabinet in latter years) were made up of significantly lesser men than their predecessors. Even the civil service is now populated by ambitious but soft people who want a cruise control career and a big pay pack with no accountability. PAP's track record this decade brings shame to their predecessors. If not because of the foundation and emotional bond built by the sacrifices of the founding fathers, this country would have "chui" by now. So all this arguments about how Singapore would not have gotten here without them is not only patently false, but glossed out the massive contributions of the Singapore worker ants who have sacrificed droves over the past two decades with poorer leadership to continue fuelling the country's economic growth.

For the second group, eventually they will need to see the opposition with the same critical eye as the PAP. As the opposition camp grows stronger, a more discerning electorate should shift their votes from simply a protest vote to sort out the chaff, so that good people will find their way to the fore and eventually be able to form an alternative to a failing PAP.

[violinist]

There's something I find very strange among Singaporeans. A lot of people seems to be unable to view the PAP objectively. In one camp, are the supporters who somehow find a way to rationalise that the party had done good for 40 years taking Singapore to where it is today. In another camp there are those who hates them to the core and will vote for anything standing the PAP, even if it is a (insert favorite animal / disgusting pest here) in elections.

To the first group, the PAP of today is nothing like the PAP of yesteryears. The cabinet of 2006 (or even GCT's cabinet in latter years) were made up of significantly lesser men than their predecessors. Even the civil service is now populated by ambitious but soft people who want a cruise control career and a big pay pack with no accountability. PAP's track record this decade brings shame to their predecessors. If not because of the foundation and emotional bond built by the sacrifices of the founding fathers, this country would have "chui" by now. So all this arguments about how Singapore would not have gotten here without them is not only patently false, but glossed out the massive contributions of the Singapore worker ants who have sacrificed droves over the past two decades with poorer leadership to continue fuelling the country's economic growth.

For the second group, eventually they will need to see the opposition with the same critical eye as the PAP. As the opposition camp grows stronger, a more discerning electorate should shift their votes from simply a protest vote to sort out the chaff, so that good people will find their way to the fore and eventually be able to form an alternative to a failing PAP.

I have voted 3 times in my life, and I have voted for both camps.

I think a large part of the reason for such diverse viewpoints is due to the polarity of the media. As we know, the mass media is controlled by you know who. So the other camp goes to the new media, hence the proliferating of websites like TR, TOC and many blogs and FB pages etc. When one goes online, you often see the mass media being labeled as "the 154th", and comments to people to avoid reading to much into the 154th, or the TV, for that matter.

Given the demography of voters in the coming election in 2016, it would be wise for the PAP to relinquish control over the mass media, and focus on creating a "brand" for themselves, both on the traditional as well as the new media. I suppose their selling points would include the often-touted track records for bringing up Singapore from 3rd world to 1st etc. If they can do that, focus their efforts in explaining their policies, telling people the rational, and engaging voters young and old in positive discussions, then they can use both the traditional and new media to their best effects.

The PAP shouldn't be afraid to lose control or be mis-represented by the press because, after all, anyone can still sue for defamation.