All from Singapore: The 10 highest paid politicians in the world

All from Singapore: The 10 highest paid politicians in the world

The 10 highest paid politicians in the world (US$)
1. Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore $2.47 million
Elected President SR Nathan - Singapore $2.57 million.

2. Donald Tsang Yum-Kuen - Hong Kong $516,000
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - Singapore $2.5 million.

3. Barack Obama - United States $400,000
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew - Singapore $2.3 million.

4. Brian Cowen - Ireland $341,000
Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong - Singapore $2.3 million.

5. Nicolas Sarkozy - France $318,000
Senior Minister S Jayakumar - Singapore $2.11 million.

6. Angela Merkel - Germany $303,000
Deputy Prime Minister & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng - Singapore $1.91 million.

7. Gordon Brown - UK $279,000
Deputy Prime Minister & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean - Singapore $1.91 million

8. Stephen Harper - Canada $246,000
Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo - Singapore $1.85 million.

9. Taro Aso - Japan $243,000
National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan - Singapore $1.78 million.
Minister-without-portfolio Lim Boon Heng - Singapore $1.78 million.
Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang - Singapore $1.78 million.

10. Kevin Rudd - Australia $229,000
12. Minister-without-portfolio Lim Swee Say - Singapore $1.72 million.


Please note that the above figures - all in US$ - are basic salary and do not include pension (two-third of last drawn salary), which are paid concurrently to politicians above 55 yearse old i.e. SR Nathan, Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong etc. Also, bonus can go up to more than 12 months!

Finally, please note that the title of this post is not entirely accurate; Not only the top 10, but in fact, the top 30 are all from Singapore!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26271.1

Defending the right to bonuses

Defending the right to bonuses

There’s a wise and ancient saying that goes like this “Even the lion will protect the wildebeest from the jackal”. It means that a man will defend something if it benefits him. Okay, there is no such saying. I totally made it up. But if it did exist it would be great saying. Another totally-great-but-made-up saying would be, “When the enemies are at the gates, the King and the Cardinal will become bosom buddies”. It means two natural adversaries will join forces when they face a common foe. Confucius has nothing on me.

The global financial crisis has hit home in more ways than one. Apart from the scores of retrenchment, dwindling consumer demands and diving stock markets, the financial crisis is also undermining some homespun rationale. A couple of days ago, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Lim Boon Heng stressed that ‘bonus’ should not be a ‘dirty word’ (The Straits Times, 5 April 2009). He went on to observe that



There has been great misunderstanding over what the word ‘bonus’ entails. You have to understand that in today’s context, companies’ bonuses are part and parcel of the overall wage package. We now operate differently from the past. So, let us not get overexcited whenever we see the word ‘bonus’ being used.



It’s very odd that a PAP Minister needs to urge Singaporeans not to begrudge corporate players their bonuses. Firstly, unlike Wall Street, Singapore has no experience of major financial mismanagement in the form of AIG, Bear Stearns, or Lehman Brothers. As Americans grow increasingly cynical with corporate culture, Singaporeans generally have faith in local financial institutions. Secondly, unlike Main Street, Singaporean taxpayers have not had to bail anyone out (on the scale of AIG). As such, the bitterness felt by Americans over the million dollar bonuses of bankers and executives is absent in Singapore. Thirdly, as a deeply meritocratic society, Singaporeans are the last to deny a fat pay check to a talented individual.



So why did Lim feel the need to rehabilitate the word ‘bonus’? Surely he must know that Singaporeans are not Main Street and Shenton Way is not Wall Street?



Or could his remarks be aimed at something else? The Wayang Party recently dug up news that a couple of officers from the People’s Association (a statutory board) received a whopping 8 month bonus. More pointedly, the Times (1 April 2009) ranked the highest paid politicians in the world and no prizes for guessing who came out tops. Following behind Singapore were the leaders of Hong Kong, US, Ireland, France, Germany, UK, Canada, Japan and Australia filling up 2nd to 10th place, respectively. Some local wit pointed out that the ranking was all wrong. The 30 best paid politicians in the world all came from Singapore!



At any other time, this would be dismissed as petty carping. During good economic times, few would bat an eye over ministerial salaries. After all, the evidence of economic growth was the ultimate KPI for ministers – so the rationale goes. But as folks lose their jobs, as Perm Secs get chastised for cooking classes, any hint of a big unwarranted pay check takes on greater political sensitivity. Furthermore, The Straits Times’s feature on the top CEO salaries in Singapore (2 April 2009) has added fuel to resentment if public reaction to the piece is anything to go by.



The echoing lesson from Wall Street is this. After years of rewarding the smartest guys with the best credentials to drive the economy, we now realize that the smartest guys may not necessarily be the best guys to do the job. Wall Street is learning that a credential-based meritocracy is not always the best way to go. This lesson is seeping into the consciousness of Singaporeans as they read about the paradigm shifts in corporate culture over in the US. With the rationale for our high ministerial salaries so informed by market logic and US corporate culture, it is no wonder that someone has come out to defend the right to bonuses.

Singapore is caught up in a tangle of contradictory forces. Our embrace of capitalism and globalisation has widened the wage gap. However, we refuse to implement minimum wage. And yet, we exhort Singaporeans not to engage in the politics of envy. There are many underlying tensions running through our society and if not managed well, its going to result in something unpleasant. In good times such tensions are hidden but in tough economic times it doesn’t take much for people to get upset. The government realises this and is out in force defending the status quo.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26270.1

Politically motivated defamation suits hurt free speech and do serious damage to the national discourse

Politically motivated defamation suits hurt free speech and do serious damage to the national discourse

In his article entitled “Impact of defamation suits on the nature of electoral politics”, Mr Kelvin Teo attempts to make the spurious argument that defamation suits might improve the quality of political discourse by forcing concerned parties to focus on what he terms “pertinent issues”, as opposed to “character labelling of their rivals”.

Citing Mr Low Thia Khiang’s and Ms Sylvia Lim’s almost exclusive attention on bread-and-butter issues during the 2006 General Elections, such as the price increases for government-regulated services or the issue of means testing at hospitals, Mr Kelvin Teo asserts that if opposition groups focus these issues as a “safe bet” (in order to avoid being sued), “the PAP will also be forced back to the policy drawing board in addressing the opposition’s points”, and the electorate will be spared “all the taunting and colourful labelling”.

When I read Mr Teo’s article, I almost thought it was pulled directly from the Straits Times, or The New Paper, or one of their ilk, but alas, it was written by an NUS alumni, “one of my own kind”, so to speak. I was saddened.

I am not familiar enough with politics in neighbouring countries to comment on how politicians there employ defamation suits, but it is my honest stand that in Singapore, the ruling elite uses defamation suits not as a way of promoting civilized discourse or constructive commentary, but as a way of silencing political dissent that they deem a threat to their own power.

Far from promoting intelligent dialogue of national issues, the liberal use of politically motivated defamation suits injures free speech, does serious damage to the national discourse, and undermines our public institutions. The result is that constructive criticism itself becomes curtailed as individuals practise self-censorship out of fear rather than out of a sense of responsibility and a desire for credibility.

Defamation law certainly has a valid place in our legal system. Individuals and organizations sometimes need recourse to defamation law to protect their reputations and livelihood from unwarranted slander and unjust attacks. But when defamation law is used by the ruling elite not to defend a legitimate legal claim but to advance their own selfish political interests at the expense of the rights of others, that abuse must be highlighted and strongly denounced.

Responsible commentary should be promoted first and foremost by the use of community moderation and positive reinforcement rather than the blunt stick of the defamation suit. The latter should only be employed as a last resort when the perpetrator of the defamatory remarks clearly has no intention of acknowledging his error and insists on continuing his unjustified attacks regardless of the truth. To suggest that defamation suits are a valid means of promoting good dialogue is to regard citizens as politically and socially immature brats who are unable to exercise good judgment.

The use of politically motivated defamation suits do not lead people to think that the defendant is in the right and the alleged perpetrator must be in the wrong. Rather, they only serve to force resentment underground, increasing the internal stresses between citizens and Government that hurt the fabric of the political landscape and society as a whole.

As for Mr Teo’s claim that the PAP will be forced back to the drawing board in answering the points that opposition parties raise, I personally have yet to see the PAP back down or revise their policies in response to criticism or suggestions from the opposition.

More often than not, it is PAP MPs themselves who argue even more vociferously than the Opposition members in Parliament, only to be predictably given the cold shoulder by the key decision makers in cabinet. (SEE: Dr Lily Neo speaks out vociferously over aid for poorest households.)

The ruling party also sometimes co-opts ideas from Opposition parties without giving due credit to them. (SEE: PM and PAP MPs adopt SDP’s economic ideas.)

Finally, Mr Kelvin Teo’s article seems to imply that the likes of Dr Chee Soon Juan, J.B. Jeyaretnam and Tang Liang Hong were “thrown into the abyss of bankruptcy” because they are ”missionary school boys” who engaged in character assassination, taunting or colourful labelling.

I will simply let the truth speak for itself as I am now at a complete loss for words.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26264.1

Rethinking the meritocratic education system - the case for welfare

Rethinking the meritocratic education system - the case for welfare

The Singapore government has long bragged that Singapore practises meritocratic values. After all, they award generous scholarships to those who excel academically and it’s often true these people have a bright future in the country. Indeed, a meritocratic model of governance seems like an ideal working model despite the criticism of some that it breeds elitism and turns academic life into a stressful rat’s race.

For some time, critics have warned that the criteria for meritocratic judgement cannot simply be academic performance (since straight-A scholars have been known to flunk real life tests), as well as the fact that smart students tend to come from families whose parents are already well-to-do and educated to begin with. Now a new line of reasoning may bolster the critics’ case.



The Washington Post published an article today reporting the results of a study showing that poverty impacts the cognitive facilities of the student and hence hinders academic performance:

“Children raised in poverty suffer many ill effects: They often have health problems and tend to struggle in school, which can create a cycle of poverty across generations.

Now, research is providing what could be crucial clues to explain how childhood poverty translates into dimmer chances of success: Chronic stress from growing up poor appears to have a direct impact on the brain, leaving children with impairment in at least one key area — working memory.”

Critics have long warned that Singapore’s over-emphasis on early indicators of academic performance of young students is premature, or that the economic situation of most of the lower-income families find themselves in often put these students under considerable duress which impedes their academic performance and hence lowers the likelihood that they could depend on good grades to pull their families out of poverty.

Now evidence exists to support such a view. Don’t be mistaken, though. I’m not claiming that neither the education ministry nor schools provide sufficient financial assistance to students in terms of subsidising school fees, giving away used textbooks etc. But what has been assumed implicitly was that the current meritocratic system offers everyone an equal to succeed so long as they performed well. Sadly, as the article shows, this isn’t necessarily the case. What apologists of the existing education system were mistaken on was the impression that so long as you give the child sufficient financial assistance for their education, they would be judged solely on their academic merits. If they can’t do well, it must be because they are lazy. Or if they aren’t lazy it may be due to the fact that intelligence may reside in hereditary factors. Unfortunately, a crucial factor was left unconsidered: stress.

“For the new study, Evans and a colleague rated the level of stress each child experienced using a scale known as “allostatic load.” The score was based on the results of tests the children were given when they were ages 9 and 13 to measure their levels of the stress hormones cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine, as well as their blood pressure and body mass index.

“These are all physiological indicators of stress,” said Evans, whose findings were published online last week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “The basic idea is this allows you to look at dysregulation resulting from stress across multiple physiological systems.”

“The subjects also underwent tests at age 17 to measure their working memory, which is the ability to remember information in the short term. Working memory is crucial for everyday activities as well as for forming long-term memories.”

“It’s critical for learning,” Evans said. “If you don’t have good working memory, you can’t do things like hold a phone number in your head or develop a vocabulary.”

When the researchers analyzed the relationships among how long the children lived in poverty, their allostatic load and their later working memory, they found a clear relationship: The longer they lived in poverty, the higher their allostatic load and the lower they tended to score on working-memory tests. Those who spent their entire childhood in poverty scored about 20 percent lower on working memory than those who were never poor, Evans said.

“The greater proportion of your childhood that your family spent in poverty, the poorer your working memory, and that link is largely explained by this chronic physiologic stress,” Evans said. “We put these things together and can say the reason we get this link between poverty and deficits in working memory is this chronic elevated stress.”

Indeed one may even argue that the meritocratic model of education may itself be exacerbating the problem, since children are placed under more stress to perform and succeed in Singapore’s highly competitive education system. At the same time, what has been done to alleviate the living conditions of children whose parents work in lowly blue collar jobs, earning the bare minimum without the benefit of a minimum wage? The government has long derided welfare as nothing more than a dirty word, but as the article shows, a lower standard of living and constant worry for the future well-being of the family may create the conditions which induces chronic stress which in turns impedes the ability of these students to do well. They are hence stuck in a vicious cycle of poverty.

Think of the children of elderly or middle-aged folks who collect cans and scavenge cardboard boxes for a living. Has their poor and low standard of living (along with uncertainty for their future) prevented them from succeeding academically? Or the children of blue-collar workers, whose parents are not guaranteed the social safety net of a minimum wage, and whose jobs are easily outsourced to the thousands of migrant workers who enter our country’s borders every year?

Indeed the article concludes:

The findings indicate that education standards and other government policies that aim to improve poor children’s performance in school should consider the stress they are experiencing at home, Evans said.

“It’s not just ‘Read to our kids and take them to the library,’ ” he said. “We need to take into account that chronic stress takes a toll not only on their health, but it may take a toll on their cognitive functioning.”

Much has been said about how the ruling party has long treated its citizens to be nothing more than worker ants, constantly reminded that academic success at a young age is crucial to climbing up to a higher level of the socio-economic ladder. Sadly, this may be nothing more than a pipe dream.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26263.1

The Ming Yi fiasco: a sombre lesson in a system which relies on “trust”

The Ming Yi fiasco: a sombre lesson in a system which relies on “trust”

I was absolutely dumbfounded when I read in the Straits Times that the management committee of one of Singapore’s largest charities - Ren Ci did not know how much they were paying their chief executive. (read article here)

They could have asked, admitted Ren Ci Hospital’s committee member Chan Ching Oi, but they did not.

Instead, they let its CEO and founder Ming Yi decide on what he deemed to be a ‘fair’ salary, Mrs Chan said on the witness stand yesterday, while testifying on the third day of a criminal trial against the Buddhist monk.

Ren Ci is the second largest charity in Singapore which was set up by the charismatic Ming Yi in 1991.

How can a charity which deals with millions of dollars of donations from the public be so sloppy and careless when it comes to corporate governance?

Mrs Chan’s lame defence that Ren Ci’s focus in the first decade had been to ‘get things done’, with less emphasis on corporate governance issues does not exonerate her or fellow directors on the management committee from blame.

As much as Ming Yi is culpable for the mess Ren Ci is in now, the directors should be held responsible for being negligent in the discharge of their duties and failure to detect deficiencies within the system.

Mrs Chan, who has been Ren Ci’s honorary secretary since it started in 1994, admitted she did not know how much Ming Yi’s salary was and that the management did not pry into it.

She said the committee trusted Ming Yi would give himself a reasonable salary, pegged to that of other hospital CEOs and also based on the scope of work undertaken by him for the hospital.

Ren Ci’s management committee might have refrained from asking Ming Yi to reveal his salary out of respect for him. He was after all a highly venerated buddhist monk in Singapore before the fiasco broke out.

Ren Ci’s donors, patients, staff and directors all trusted Ming Yi. He had worked tirelessly to build Ren Ci to its present state from nothing. His name was synonymous with Ren Ci and he was its largest fund raiser, having risked his life performing dangerous stunts in charity shows. Who would expect him to raise fix his own salary and to raise it arbitrarily without discussing with anybody?

The Ming Yi fiasco has proven to Singaporeans again beyond doubt that a system which relies on trust alone is a faulty one open to abuse. When there are no checks and balances in the system, a powerful, charistmatic or influential leader will be given a blank cheque to run the organization without having to account to anybody. And that lies the real danger. Can we expect human beings to check on themselves?

Had Ren Ci instituted a proper system to ensure its CEO answer to the Board of Directors, Ming Yi would not have been tempted to make such a blunder in the first place. He should know his actions were wrong, but he still went ahead because nobody would find out.

When it comes to managing the nation’s treasury which is a million times more than Ren Ci’s funds, all more should there be stringent measures put in place to ensure that the people in charge of it are held accountable.

No man is above Singapore, even if he is the nation’s founding father who had made tremendous contributions to its growth and development. Can our present system stand up to scrutiny?

Our two sovereign wealth funds - Temasek and GIC are supposed to manage our country’s reserves. They are owned by the Ministry of Finance.

Both funds are run by a Board of Directors like any other corporate companies. However, we have no idea about the following:

1. Who is responsible for deciding the pay and bonuses of these directors and executives?

2. What are their salaries, bonuses and perks?

3. Do these executives hold directorships in other companies?

These are legitimate questions which every Singaporean ought to ask the government. Unfortunately, it is unlikely we will obtain an answer from the Minister of Finance Tharman who appears to favor a system based on “trust”.

Let us recap this exchange between Inderjit Singh and Tharman on 5 February 2009 in Parliament on the hasty approval of the use of our reserves by the President:

Inderjit Singh:

What’s missing is the process that the President took after he got briefed by the government. If we could get a sense of what they discussed and what process they went through to decide, then this may clear many of these questions.”

Tharman:

“I’m not sure why it is relevant. At the end of the day, this is a system that is different from Norway and Australia, where as much detail as possible is provided. This is a system that relies on trust in the individuals who are in charge including those appointed to the CPA and the Elected President. Do you trust them? Have they made decisions wisely? Has the government been acting responsibly?”

Does Mr Tharman have trust in the individuals who are in charge of Temasek and GIC now? Having trust in one another is a matter of personal conviction. It should not be confused with accountability and transparency.

As the minister in charge of managing the nation’s treasury, Minister Tharman should know that “trust” is not enough to ensure that our precious reserves are properly managed.

A system which does not hold leaders accountable for their actions is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode upon us. Who can promise that the leaders in the future will be as honest and incorruptible as the present generation?

Human nature is unpredictable. People do change. Rules and regulations can be bent at will easily too. Only a system having multiple layers of checks and balances will prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of one person or group which will keep possible abuses to a minimum.

There is no reason why Temasek and GIC cannot subject themselves to external audits. In fact, the Ministry of Finance should engage a reputable accounting firm to audit their accounts on a yearly basis and publish the report online for the public to see.

Ren Ci had taught us another sombre lesson in the fallacy that “trust” in individuals alone will make the government act responsibly. Trust must be based on having adequate checks and balances in the system to hold the executive accountable for its actions without which it is merely a hollow word with no significance.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26262.1

Mindef clarifies Allan Ooi's bond

April 8, 2009

SAF doctor found dead

Mindef clarifies doc's bond

By Jermyn Chow
		Singapore Armed Forces Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, 27, was found dead under the Westgate Bridge in the South Australian city of Melbourne on 3 March 2009. --PHOTO: FACEBOOK

THE Defence Ministry has addressed for a second time issues raised by the family of Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, who had gone absent without official leave for five months before being found dead in Melbourne, Australia, last month.

In a letter to the media on Tuesday, the ministry said it would have preferred to keep such exchanges private out of respect for Capt (Dr) Ooi and his family. However, it said an earlier letter by the family had raised 'several issues', and it was necessary to clarify them.

Among them, said Mindef spokesman Darius Lim, was the three-year bond Capt (Dr) Ooi had to serve after he was sent for a six-month stint in aviation medicine in London in January last year.

In a letter to the press last week, the family claimed that this bond was to be served on top of the Republic of Singapore Air Force medical officer's 12-year medicine scholarship bond - in effect, making it a three-year bond for a six-month course.

However, Colonel Lim said yesterday that this was untrue. He said the bonds were to be served concurrently, and this was explained to Capt (Dr) Ooi when he signed the contract in December 2007 before flying off to London. In fact, two of his family members signed the contract as his sureties.

Added Col Lim: 'Mindef also sent Capt (Dr) Ooi an e-mail to confirm this. He acknowledged receiving the mail.'

When the SAF scholarship holder returned from his London training stint last July, he had told his superior at the Aeromedical Centre that he was unhappy at work and wanted out of the SAF.

About a month later - on Aug 12, not in July, as his family had said - Capt (Dr) Ooi wrote to the Head of Manpower at Headquarters Medical Corps, expressing his intention to quit.

On Aug 20, the Head of Manpower replied, and explained how to apply for an early release.

But Capt (Dr) Ooi did not submit an application, said Col Lim. On Oct 3, the doctor's superior offered him the option of a 'posting to an appointment of his choice'.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26237.2

Death of SAF doctor Allan Ooi: Mindef replies to family's letter

Death of SAF doctor: Mindef replies to family's letter

WE REFER to last Thursday's letter from the family of the late Captain (Dr) Allan Ooi, 'Family of dead SAF doctor seeks answers'.

Mindef would have preferred to keep the exchanges private, out of respect for the late Capt (Dr) Ooi and his family.

As the letter has raised several matters, it is necessary for Mindef to provide some factual clarifications.

The six-month Aviation Medicine course that Capt (Dr) Ooi attended in Britain from January last year had a three-year bond, to be served concurrently with his 12-year Local Study Award (Medicine) bond.

This was explained to Capt (Dr) Ooi when he and his two sureties signed the course deed on Dec 19, 2007, before he left for Britain.

Mindef also sent Capt (Dr) Ooi an e-mail to confirm this. He acknowledged receiving the e-mail. It is thus untrue that his 12-year bond would be 'prolonged by another three years for one six-month course'.

After he returned from Britain last year, he told his superior at the Aeromedical Centre on July 23 that he was unhappy at work and wanted to leave the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

Mindef's records show that Capt (Dr) Ooi had written to the Head of Manpower at Headquarters Medical Corps on Aug 12 last year and not 'July 2008', expressing his wish to resign.

The Head of Manpower replied on Aug 20, explaining to him the application process for early release. But Capt (Dr) Ooi did not apply for early release.

On Oct 3, his superior interviewed him and offered him the option of posting to an appointment of his choice. Capt (Dr) Ooi thanked his superior and promised to respond in two weeks. But he did not do so and went Absent Without Official Leave (Awol) on Oct 15.

Officers sponsored by the SAF know that they have a moral obligation to serve out the full period of their bonds, which goes beyond the legal obligation to pay the liquidated damages if the bond is broken.

Substantial public funds have been invested in their training. They are, in turn, expected to do their duty unless prevented from doing so because of extenuating circumstances, like medical reasons.

The family of the late Capt (Dr) Ooi asked for an inquiry into Mindef's policies and processes on the premise that this would avert a similar tragedy.

Mindef convened a Board of Inquiry on March 11, which concluded that matters related to the late Capt (Dr) Ooi's service with the SAF were managed appropriately.

While the late Capt (Dr) Ooi was unhappy with his job and had wished to resign, he subsequently went Awol even though he had been told of other possible job options.

Mindef will continue to be as open and helpful as possible to the family of the late Capt (Dr) Ooi and also provide the facts of the case to the public while respecting the privacy of the family.

Colonel Darius Lim
Director Public Affairs
Ministry of Defence

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26237.1