Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 115

Thread: ministers' pension

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default ministers' pension

    can someone verify this please ?

    if this is true .......its a real scandal

    http://easyapps.sg/sgep/admin/file.aspx?id=145

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    How come that lawyer didnt cite which section of the Act?
    Easier for public to search and verify for themselves.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,943

    Default

    tax free as well?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    How come that lawyer didnt cite which section of the Act?
    Easier for public to search and verify for themselves.

    just google part or whole paragraph and you will find it.

    http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_versi...8373251-000067


    so even opp mps who serve > 2 terms are also entitled.
    Last edited by lifeline; 11-05-11 at 10:18.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    Does it mean TPL just needs to work as mp till she is 35 years old to get pension for life? OMG

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Regulators
    Does it mean TPL just needs to work as mp till she is 35 years old to get pension for life? OMG
    8/27 * 1500(incl cpf) = 444pm

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Regulators
    Does it mean TPL just needs to work as mp till she is 35 years old to get pension for life? OMG
    2 terms means she'll be 37 by then. Wah.. but I don't think the pension scheme is for MP. It's probably only for ministers and office holders (as explained in the attached document). MPs receive allowances on top of their daily jobs so its their jobs that will take care of their retirement... but they probably get more from the allowance as MP than their daily job's salary???

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
    Also never want to reveal their wealth?
    Not as noble as you thought!!!!
    Nmp also have or not?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,307

    Default

    pension scheme only for office holders

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devilplate
    pension scheme only for office holders
    i used to go to Air supply concerts ....

    until one year ... i realised they are so old and could hardly reach those notes ..

    when it came to high notes, he pushed the mic towards the crowd ... and the fans will sing ...

    and year after year they come to spore ...

    i cant help but think ... these are the last few chances for them to rip the fans ... and retire


    the same for our deargovt ... in the last few years they jacked their salaries ...

    just like Air Supply ... trying to squeeze out as much as possible from the fans before they retire

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
    Also never want to reveal their wealth?
    Not as noble as you thought!!!!
    Nmp also have or not?
    NCMP Steve Chia did asked and LHL respond... See below for what happened...
    Full details can be found here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/11/...ension-scheme/

    The following article was first published in 2007, amidst the debate on changes to the CPF scheme. With the current spotlight on the retirement issue and the government exhorting Singaporeans to “work longer to save for old age“, we thought it would be good to revisit the matter and consider the disparity between ministers and ordinary Singaporeans when it comes to funds for retirement. (See the exchange between then-NCMP Steve Chia and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.)
    By Andrew Loh
    The current debate on the issues of retirement, compulsory annuities and the CPF shows up 2 stark contrasts.


    For ordinary Singaporeans, the annuity scheme – to put it simply – is basically a “pool fund” where the old support the old when they retire. When they pass away, their contribution to the fund is used to support the ones who are living, those 85 and above.


    For government ministers, their “retirement” scheme is something from way back in the past. I am talking about the Pension Scheme for the Administrative Service (AS). (This includes prime ministers, senior ministers, speakers, ministers of state, mayors, parliamentary secretaries and political secretaries.) (link)

    Yes, the pension scheme is still being implemented today, for the AS.

    Former Non-Constituency Member Of Parliament (NCMP) Steve Chia had asked then deputy prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, about this – in Parliament, 2004:

    “Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers’ money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers’ money until they die. Am I right to say that?”

    DPM Lee’s reply was that yes, Administrative Officers (AO) are on the pension scheme and that the government is “going on market terms”. He also added that:

    “There is no free lunch.”

    (See the exchange between Mr Chia and DPM Lee at the end of this article.)

    “No Free Lunch”. Really?

    The question which some of us have is: “Why are Singaporeans being asked to contribute to what is effectively a pool fund – through the proposed compulsory annuities scheme – so that surviving elderly Singaporeans can have “$250-$300” per month, while ministers’ retirement are taken care of by the pension scheme, funded again by taxpayers?

    Does not the dictum “No Free Lunch” apply to ministers as well?

    And: Why is the pension scheme retained for the Administrative Service when it was phased out for “majority of the civil service since 1986”? (link)

    Another question is: Why are our ministers still on the pension scheme when they are already being paid the highest salaries in the world, in any government anywhere on earth?

    According to the Prime Minister’s Office, in a letter to the press in April 2007:

    “The maximum pension for a Minister drawing a total annual salary of $1.2 million is $176,500 per annum …”(link)

    Elderly Singaporeans, aged 85 and above, can expect only $250 to $300 per month from the annuity scheme. As my colleague, Sze Hian said, assuming 1.5 per cent inflation, the $250 to $300 monthly annuity, is equivalent to $149 to $178 today.

    This is more astounding when you consider that Singaporeans have one of the highest savings rate in the world!

    What else do ministers get?

    Paying government leaders an appropriate remuneration has been debated and the government, at least in the foreseeable future, is not going to budge. Indeed, their salaries will be “revised” upwards again at the end of this year and one more time next year. (link)

    Further, the government also increased the GDP Bonus for ministers. According to Minister Teo Chee Hean:


    “We will increase the bonus to a norm payment of 3 months if the economy grows by 5%. The minimum payment will remain at zero if the economy grows by 2% or less. The maximum will be increased to 8 months if the economy grows by 10% or more.” (link)
    And the Performance Bonus (which all administrative service officers receive):

    “We will increase the Performance Bonus by 2 months for officers at this level, to a norm of 7 months.” (link)
    Making sense of it all
    To summarise, ministers receive the highest salaries in the world, they also receive pensions (either after they leave the service or reach 55. There are also active ministers who are presently 55 or above 55 and who are also receiving pensions at the same time. See below exchange between Steve Chia and DPM Lee), they are given a GDP Bonus of anywhere from 3 months to 8 months (conditional on the GDP) and a Performance Bonus of 7 months.

    Looking at all these dizzying numbers, should one begrudge the ministers such remuneration? Perhaps not, but as leaders elected by the people, leaders who are suppose to set the tone for society, much more is expected.
    The Great Affective Divide – resurrected?
    There is a certain sense of unease among Singaporeans – when they compare what their leaders are earning and what they are struggling with.

    The widening income gap is indeed well and truly upon us. And it is not just an income gap.

    I would say there is also a moral gap. An affective divide, to borrow from Catherine Lim. A return of disaffection.

    How do you explain to an 85 year old that he will only be receiving $250 to $300 per month when he stops working, even with an annuity scheme? (This sum is not much more than the $290 which those on Public Assistance receive from the government, which is for “subsistence”.)
    And that when he passes away, he cannot delegate the money to his children or spouse (unless he opts to pay a higher premium) and that it will go into a “pool” to support other 85-year-olds and above who will also receive $250 to $300 per month? (link)
    How do you explain to someone who would have worked some 40, 50, 60 years that he will only have $250 to $300 per month when he no longer is able to work?
    Moral authority, moral leadership
    As in this article published earlier, the question of moral authority or moral leadership re-surfaces.
    The question of moral authority is something which some government ministers have denied or brushed aside. Minister in charge of the Civil Service Teo Chee Hean was quoted by Channelnewsasia as saying:
    “It is wrong to think that a bigger pay would undermine the moral authority of the government.”(link)
    But isn’t this happening right now? That people are questioning the government’s and the ministers’ moral authority? That there is this perception – real or otherwise – that the government (and ministers) are so well-paid that they can no longer empathise with the average Singaporean?
    That ministers’ retirement needs are taken care of by tax payers money through the Pension Scheme while tax payers have to fend for themselves when they retire, if ever they do?
    Annuities for Singaporeans, pension for ministers?

    In the words of Catherine Lim, be mindful of the affective gap.

    Additional note:
    I do not wish to harp on the vast gap between what the rich deserve and what the average Singaporeans will get as retirement pay-outs. But, if we accept the premise that our leaders deserve such handsome retirement benefits, one still cannot help but ask: how can anyone, especially an aged person, make do with just $250 or $300 a month in Singapore?
    This is not just a debate on equity, i.e. what is realistic and fair, but on what’s right by a caring government and those in high positions who have the power to decide what to give themselves as their old age nest egg and what to dole out to those without the power to demand something more.
    Certainly, our leaders should not be so tight fisted with the people of Singapore. They should instead do something positive and right to reduce the misery of the lower income, who form a substantial number of Singaporeans.
    Daft, Dafter, Dafterest!!!!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Another article in TOC..

    By Andrew Loh

    It is interesting to hear the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, declare that he will donate his salary increment to charity at a time when the government’s moral authority is being questioned. The prime minister said:
    “To make it quite clear why I’m doing this, and also to give me the moral standing to defend this policy with Singaporeans, I will hold my own salary at the present level for five years. Whatever increases (I get), I will donate to suitable good causes.”(TODAY, front page, April 12, 2007)
    The interesting part is his use of the term “moral standing”.
    It was only a few days ago, also in parliament, that the minister in charge of the civil service, Teo Chee Hean, said :
    “It is wrong to think that a bigger pay would undermine the moral authority of the government.” (channelnewsasia)
    So, why did the prime minister suddenly announce that he will be donating his pay increment to charity in order to “give me the moral standing”? Did not minister Teo say that bigger pay would not undermine the “moral authority of the government”?

    The government did not anticipate the outcry?
    One reason could be that the government did not expect or anticipate the huge outcry that the issue has created among Singaporeans. Perhaps the thinking was that the economy is doing well with record jobs being created, that Singaporeans will understand and accept the rationale behind the move.
    But as this article says, Singaporeans see it as a moral issue – and not simply as one of getting the best to be in government.
    In short, Singaporeans expect those in public service to be judged on an additional set of criterias besides being good technocrats or bureaucrats.
    Government underestimated the importance of moral authority?
    The other reason for the prime minister’s action could also be that the government itself underestimated the importance of moral authority that Singaporeans place on those in leadership positions.
    Although some, like the Straits Times, may term singaporeans’ reactions as “knee jerk”, there is a deeper reason for the outcry. And this is the perception that the ‘elites’ are reaping the fruits of rewards which are created by the effort of everyone – the poor and less fortunate included.
    This is where I suspect the issue of moral authority comes in.
    Giving the least in our society – those on public assistance – just a measly $290 per month (which is an increase of only $30 per month), compared to a minister’s increment of $33,333 per month, raises the questions of priorities, and the moral standing of the government.
    The sharp contrast in the difference of the increment for public assistance ($30) and for ministers ($33,333) brings the question of moral authority into very acute focus.
    Damage control
    Thus, looking at the issue, it is not really surprising that the prime minister would declare that he is effectively freezing his own salary increase and donate his increment to “suitable good causes”.
    It is a political move.
    A political move to try and assuage singaporeans’ anger over the matter – and, as the PM himself said, to give him the “moral standing to defend the policy with Singaporeans”.
    Whether this will work is left to be seen.
    The PM’s move in fact has thrown up more questions such as: Why did he not do it earlier? What about the rest of the ministers? Will they donate their increment to charity as well? Even the president’s salary is now being brought into question (TODAY, April 12, 2007, Voices).
    Where do we go from here?
    There is no question of the government turning back or put this increment of civil servants’ salaries on hold. It’s a done deal right from the word go.
    Parliament does not have to vote on the proposal.
    How Singaporeans will accept – or not accept – this salary hike will depend on whether the government can deliver in the next 4 years or so. The same issues are still there – widening income gap, ageing population, foreign talents, rising cost of living, etc.
    With this increase in ministers’ salary, the pressure is now on the PAP government to deliver. Singaporeans will – indeed, should – keep an eye on the performance of the government from now on.
    And with this latest pay hike, the standards and results expected of the government have just jumped a few notches.
    Damage control or not – with or without moral standing or moral authority.
    —————————————
    PM Lee, at his swearing-in ceremony after last May’s General Elections (referring to 2006 GE):
    “We must not allow ourselves to be divided between haves and have-nots, or winners and losers … if we let a politics of envy drive a wedge between us, our society will be destroyed, and all will suffer. That must never happen.”
    (Channelnewsasia)
    Daft, Dafter, Dafterest!!!!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Parliament exchange between Steve Chia & LHL on Pension Scheme...

    Parliamentary exchange between NCMP Steve Chia and DPM Lee Hsien Loong, 16 June 2004:
    Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping Ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.
    The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them. As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers. Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.
    Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas Ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers’ money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified Ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers’ money until they die. Am I right to say that?
    Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member’s implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.
    Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving Minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?
    Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the Ministers follow the civil service rules.
    Daft, Dafter, Dafterest!!!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    I think our govt ministers can be likened to andy hui more, every year coming to singapore to dig money from concerts and trying to show people that he is still an icon and relevant to the music industry. pay me $100 to go to his concert I also not interested
    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner
    i used to go to Air supply concerts ....

    until one year ... i realised they are so old and could hardly reach those notes ..

    when it came to high notes, he pushed the mic towards the crowd ... and the fans will sing ...

    and year after year they come to spore ...

    i cant help but think ... these are the last few chances for them to rip the fans ... and retire


    the same for our deargovt ... in the last few years they jacked their salaries ...

    just like Air Supply ... trying to squeeze out as much as possible from the fans before they retire

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,013

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Regulators
    I think our govt ministers can be likened to andy hui more, every year coming to singapore to dig money from concerts and trying to show people that he is still an icon and relevant to the music industry. pay me $100 to go to his concert I also not interested
    You don't go so you belong to the 40% but there are still other 60% who are willing to pay $100 and some even $150 to go listen... there are some good oldie who still can serenade the crowd but most oldie CMI already lah...

  16. #16
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ysyap
    You don't go so you belong to the 40% but there are still other 60% who are willing to pay $100 and some even $150 to go listen... there are some good oldie who still can serenade the crowd but most oldie CMI already lah...
    Absolutely Hard Truth.
    Daft, Dafter, Dafterest!!!!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Become MP for two terms also get pension for life at 50% last drawn allowance.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
    Also never want to reveal their wealth?
    Not as noble as you thought!!!!
    Nmp also have or not?
    It was brought up between 2001 - 2006 period by Steve Chia before.

    It is old topic.

    No point bringing it up over and over again.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    Can you talk with some sense? When we dispute high ministerial salaries, what has that got to do with the personal wealth of the opposition? High ministerial salaries of ministers are funded by ppl's money which is the why it has become a point of contention. The personal wealth of opposition members did not come from taxpayers money so it is no concern to anybody.
    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    why opposition cst and ltk didnt point this out?
    Also never want to reveal their wealth?
    Not as noble as you thought!!!!
    Nmp also have or not?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wenqing
    It was brought up between 2001 - 2006 period by Steve Chia before.

    It is old topic.

    No point bringing it up over and over again.
    can dont be daft or not? Just because PAP say no need to reveal doesnt mean opposition also dont reveal.
    No difference between PAP and opposition.
    Where is moral authority to put PAP to shame?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    1,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    can dont be daft or not? Just because PAP say no need to reveal doesnt mean opposition also dont reveal.
    No difference between PAP and opposition.
    Where is moral authority to put PAP to shame?

    9 days is short time to cover so many issues plus rebutting slanders from PAP.

    If you want cover all issues. Vote in more WP then.

    Campaign time, Minister salaries were covered but cannot remember if pensions too.

    Maybe you can search youtube.

    Do not depend on ST and CNA.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wenqing
    9 days is short time to cover so many issues plus rebutting slanders from PAP.

    If you want cover all issues. Vote in more WP then.

    Campaign time, Minister salaries were covered but cannot remember if pensions too.

    Maybe you can search youtube.

    Do not depend on ST and CNA.
    fair enough not enough time during campaign. Now LTK and 5 friends in parliament. Will they hold a press conference every year to reveal their assets, income and taxes paid???
    Did steven chia start the ball rolling by revealing his own wealth?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    Our ministers are really shameless!!!

    MPs agree to freeze their own salaries at £65,738
    Move agreed without Commons vote after MPs were told to be 'in step' with British workers or risk public anger



    Ben Quinn
    The Guardian, Tuesday 22 March 2011
    Article history

    The move will bring MPs into line with most public sector workers. Photograph: PA
    MPs last night agreed to freeze their £65,738 salaries without a Commons vote after they were told to be "in step" with workers around the country or risk public anger.

    The move brings MPs into line with most public sector workers, whose pay has been frozen for two years. The Senior Salaries Review Body, whose recommendations have been implemented since 2008, had suggested a 1% rise.

    However, there was disagreement when the leader of the House, Sir George Young, said MPs' pay should be set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which is disliked by many MPs.

    The decision has angered many backbenchers on all sides of the House with some believing they are underpaid and others who do not agree that they should have to vote on their own salary.

    Many are also angry about curbs placed on their expenses in the wake of the scandal over abuses.

    Sir George told MPs the Government had to take "difficult decisions" across the public sector, including imposing a two-year pay freeze for those earning over £21,000.

    He said: "Colleagues must now decide whether their constituents would welcome Parliament exempting itself from this policy and thus insulating itself from decisions that are affecting households up and down the country.

    "Or whether, as I believe they should be in step with what is being required of other public servants. I believe it is right for us as MPs to forgo the pay increase which the current formula would have produced."

    The call was backed by the Shadow leader of the House, Hilary Benn, who said: "The public would find it very hard to understand if we got a pay rise when they are not getting a pay rise and that is why we will support the motion."

    Labour MP John Mann (Bassetlaw) said he was against MPs having to vote on their own salaries, insisting that "the principle of Members' salaries should be set by a body entirely independent of Parliament".

    He said: "Having been through the pain (of the expenses scandal), but the pain is not over, having been through that, having eventually determined that we should determine our own pay, having agreed the principle, we suddenly get back to where we started.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    637

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hopeful
    fair enough not enough time during campaign. Now LTK and 5 friends in parliament. Will they hold a press conference every year to reveal their assets, income and taxes paid???
    Did steven chia start the ball rolling by revealing his own wealth?
    As stated by others.

    The point of contention is that the millions earned by ministers comes from the taxpayer.
    If they are self made millionaires no one will care how much money they have.

    Opposition member like CSM will no doubt be a millionaire but due to their own private enterprise.

    Personally I couldn't give a damn how much any of them have. PAP ministers included.
    It's publicly stated how much they earn from the taxpayer - let them contend on that alone, which I believe is the question most are asking.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,013

    Default

    Whether we like it or not, their salary is here to stay. No point arguing and saying its unfair. Think we can only criticize on their effectiveness in policy implementations and stuff... Uniquely Singapore... Welcome to Singapore!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,841

    Default

    There are 3.5 million voters and 1.4 million voters voted against the pap. Out of the 1.4 million, I dare say almost all are unhappy with the way ministers are paying themselves ridiculous salaries from taxpayers money and that is a large part of the population. If this were to take place in uk, there would be street protests immediately, but our govt knows that majority of singaporeans are docile and thus they are unreserved about taking singaporeans for granted.
    Quote Originally Posted by EBD
    As stated by others.

    The point of contention is that the millions earned by ministers comes from the taxpayer.
    If they are self made millionaires no one will care how much money they have.

    Opposition member like CSM will no doubt be a millionaire but due to their own private enterprise.

    Personally I couldn't give a damn how much any of them have. PAP ministers included.
    It's publicly stated how much they earn from the taxpayer - let them contend on that alone, which I believe is the question most are asking.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Regulators
    There are 3.5 million voters and 1.4 million voters voted against the pap. Out of the 1.4 million, I dare say almost all are unhappy with the way ministers are paying themselves ridiculous salaries from taxpayers money and that is a large part of the population. If this were to take place in uk, there would be street protests immediately, but our govt knows that majority of singaporeans are docile and thus they are unreserved about taking singaporeans for granted.
    Ard 2.5mil voters altogether rite?

    All unhappy abt minister pay except ministers n wanabes

    Toking abt uk....hmm....wat r their problems today? Care 2 share?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    4,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EBD
    As stated by others.

    The point of contention is that the millions earned by ministers comes from the taxpayer.
    If they are self made millionaires no one will care how much money they have.

    Opposition member like CSM will no doubt be a millionaire but due to their own private enterprise.

    Personally I couldn't give a damn how much any of them have. PAP ministers included.
    It's publicly stated how much they earn from the taxpayer - let them contend on that alone, which I believe is the question most are asking.
    Look I also don't give a damn about ministers' salaries.
    However, if opposition want to whip up the crowd, to score points and perhaps win a few more votes, then revealing their own wealth first would be a moral advantage.

    The advantage that opposition has is that most of their wealth is from private enterprise.
    Now how about ministers and PAP MPs? Do their wealth come mostly from ministerial pay and director fees of GLCs?

    Also opposition reveal own CPF statements, so that the minister who smiled when he saw CPF statement also will reveal what is the amount that makes him smile.

    It would be interesting to see if ministers, MPs deposit more into CPF, or just legal bare minimum. If bare minimum, then opposition can attack PAP that PAP themselves dont believe in CPF......

    Asked the health minister's how he paid S$8 only, so that the poor can also pay S$8 for operation. If he reveal that he pay like $5000 in premiums annually, the opposition also can attack how is healthcare affordable....

    Always compare and contrast ad nauseum.
    Now where is the opposition demagogue when you need one. NS maybe???

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,307

    Default

    Dun nid ....

    Just nid to shout: 1ST WORLD PARLIAMENT!

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    1st world salary already

Similar Threads

  1. Pay cut for the ministers!!!
    By phantom_opera in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 184
    -: 30-01-12, 16:36
  2. OUR MINISTERS' PAY COMPARED TO UNITED STATES MINISTERS
    By Regulators in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 505
    -: 02-05-11, 01:26

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •