Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Teo's Duplicity Exposed

We just want to be as rich as these guys, is that asking too much?
DPM Teo Chee Hean used the word conundrum to mean "a puzzling question or problem". But it also means "a riddle in which a fanciful question is answered by a pun". He may try to avoid a direct answer to an outstanding issue by repeating the fallacious line, "Political pay levels and structures based on domestic political considerations in one country may not correlate with the conditions in another," but we have not forgotten his comrades' official spiel about globalisation that forced Singaporeans to accept "competitive pay" - their justification for foreign imports that stole white collar jobs.

Calling for high standards of accountability, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC Inderjit Singh said: "If a minister consistently performs poorly and less than satisfactorily, the Prime Minister should be quick to replace him, as is done in the private sector." We have a PM who actually apologised for his past performance and promised to do better, was he ever in danger of being replaced?

Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Alvin Yeo was dumb enough to cite Barack Obama has a net worth of US$7.3 million, "thanks to his book sales." Many a minister in the cabinet has not penned a single volume, save the octogenarian who keeps regurgitating his fairy tales in heavy tomes fit mostly for door stop material, yet you can safely bet each of their net worth is easily more than twice that of the US President. Just take a look at their residential addresses.

Sengkang West MP Lam Pin Min reminded us that when political leaders sow the sees today, "we will reap the harvest for ourselves, for our children and our future." He must be referring to the under capacity trains, the insufficient drainage, the shortage of affordable housing, and insatiable greed of the ministers in office. Yeah, right, reap and weep.

Surprisingly the quote of the day came not from the opposition parties, but from Moulmein-Kallang GRC MP Denise Phua, who nailed it by calling the proposed benchmark for pegging ministerial salaries "arbitrary" and "smacks of elitism." It could have been a moment of epiphany, or it could simply be a calculated ploy to take the sting out of the opposition's, and the people of Singapore's, rightful accusation. Leopards don't usually change their spots overnight.


  1. PAP Alvin Yeo is just a yes man. What has the personal wealth of, say, Obam got to do with ministerial salary??? He wrote books that many people wnt to read, so he earned it fairly based on his own ability. Our ministers are free to write books like LKY and Nathan. The people dont care as long as they dont pay for such earnings!

    The wealth of obama is publicly disclosed, but not our ministers and PM. I challenge all ministers to declare their wealth. I bet my last dollar that PM Lee's wealth is many times more than Obama!!

  2. So he finally admitted the fact that passion alone is not enough. It was afterall MONEY and plenty of it, isn't it ?

    I will be more convinced if maybe Teo can just answer a simple "Yes" to a simple question like "Can any Singapore CEO demand a salary that is 4 times (let alone 9 times) that of any US CEO, like for like under similar type of work conditions ?

    No need to bullshit us about plentiful resources or not having enough talents to come forward ? Aren't people like CSM or CSJ not talented enough ? Come on, stop talking cock again.

    And for that jamban MP, are you also admitting that part of our Ministers' pay is actually for compensating our PAP Ministers for being unable to be corrupt like their Malaysian counterparts ?

    And then exactly why do we need the ACA for, to deal only with the small fries as all the big fish has been more than handsomely compensated ?

  3. Alvin Yeo must be one talent singapore must have as political leader.
    Without him, Sin maybe in danger of suffering some misfortune and without his colleagues in the cabinet, Singapore will sink immediately.


  4. Well said. They force Singaporeans to accept global competition (from influx of foreign talents) and they personally won't accept it.

    They want to call it sacrifices for their fame, power and influence. Why not try telling Singaporeans who have sacrificed their civic liberties last 40 yrs in exchange for the so-called good governance. If they can't and won't deliver it anymore, give it back my civic rights!

    I don't buy the high salaries to deter corruption. Like drug death penalty, they can just install the death penalty for corruption over 1m and that will settle it. Since they are such a believer that punishment deters bad behavior. End of story.

    If they insists on their bonus..gd luck to them 2016!

  5. What exactly is the 'local situations' and 'hidden perks and benefits" is DPM referring to? He has to outline them clearly.

    Remember the days when Tony Tan (then DPM) went to cut SGreans CPF and pay when he famously compared us with the equivalent talents from Pacific and US/UK. You wonder why he didn't cit the 'local situations' are different for singaporeans workers who shouldn't have to 'sacrifice' for their standards of living. And when LSS subsequently compare us to 3rd world 1st class talents and urged us to be 'cheaper, better, faster'..But when it comes to comparison for politicians' compensation - they are beyond comparison..!!

    Please go and eat your own warped logic. We just don't buy it.

    In fact, can someone outline what is the % split of Salary/Perks component of SG politicians now?

  6. //Alvin Yeo : Rather the committee was looking at the talent pool of Singaporeans from which the government would seek to draw its future leaders.”//

    Pls tell me - of all the Ministers/MP, how many (%) did PAP successfully drew them from private sector? In fact, most came from civil and military ranks, and other GLCs. The PM himself admitted that they weren't successful in getting talents from this sector, so stop pegging benchmark against it.

  7. Cheaper, better, faster! Practice what you preach. Lead by example. Serve the people.

  8. Pegging minister pay to private pay is a mistake. Private pay is based on profit and loss from businesses. Minister pay is based on taxpayers' money and if you keep asking for more, this will mean heavier tax burden on the country. Private businesses are subjected to competitive pressure from both domestic and external players. Ministers or top politicians in Singapore don't face much competition and they're relatively safe. So, there is no risk premium in minister pay as compared to private pay, which means you do not need to offer more in terms of compensation for the risk factor. They're just too different things.

    If private sector's CEOs don't perform, they're also removed very quickly and if not their companies will go bankrupt. Recently there has been this breakdown in the link between private sector's CEO pay and performance. As a result, governments in western countries and the shareholders there are calling for more supervision on CEOs' pay. Is PAP aware of this? If they really want to peg to private sector pay, are they prepared to allow voters greater scrutiny or even vote over their pay? If they're not prepared for this, they should stop trying to peg their pay to private pay. This is like comparing apples to oranges.

    The crux of the whole matter is their steadily deteriorating performance over these recent years.

    Show Us Performance 1st, Show Us You Deserve What You Ask For 1st!

  9. If I hear another Ministers sprouting 'sacrifices" for the work they are doing to justify their salaries, let's have no hesitation to sacrifice them in 2016 so that they can go back to private sector and be a happy private citizen again.

  10. Talk about vested interest. Who in this world would ever admit that he is overpaid for what he is doing? All these people are running around giving lame excuses trying to be indispensable.

  11. How are LHL & Teo CH paid before they join politic??? Did SAF pay them more then million dollars a year???