I got this from Mak Yuen Teen’s commentary in Today.
I find the last 2 sentences (underlined) very interesting and make a lot of sense. Do you agree with Mak?
When you pay poorly, you might still get good people but, undoubtedly, the pool you select from will be smaller. You may also attract some who are willing to take low pay because they want to use their position for other benefit, such as taking bribes or getting directorships in companies.
When you pay very well, the pool will be larger, but you also risk attracting the wrong people who are motivated purely by money. People who are attracted to politics because of the money (or power) might still want to use their positions for their own benefit because for some, it is never enough.
I personally do not believe that high pay is effective for fighting corruption; I think it is an affront to the many who make an honest living on low pay to suggest that paying little encourages corruption.
However, it is very difficult to determine what is the "right" pay for CEOs, people with very specialised skills - and government ministers. For CEOs, certain "benchmarks" have been suggested, such as some percentage of profits, some ratio to average employee pay, the pay of sports stars and celebrities or fellow CEOs. None of these are wholly satisfactory.
Benchmarking ministerial pay to other professions has its limitations because they are totally different jobs, and different jobs come with different lifestyles and employment risks. When I look at my peers who have gone to the private sector, many are earning a lot more than I do now, but they do not have my more flexible lifestyle as an academic, and they are not able to achieve tenure which gives better job security.
In any case, I believe that the best people in any field are those who are driven first by their passion and calling.
Your boss will tell you, don't reveal your bonus to colleagues - keep it confidential.
He won't say it but you know it -- if colleagues know how big yr bonus is, there would envy, discontent, etc.
The human psychology is this: People would rather make $5,000 a month when others are making $4K, than to make $6K when others are making $7K.
The ministers' pay have become a hot potato because they makeway too much more than the average Singaporean. It's not becos the pay is not worthy of the job. Many people would recognise that a minister's job is heavy and the policies would have economic impact that is very much more than their pay.
The other day, got a call from sweet voice. "Hi, I am from UOB. We sent you an invite to increase your credit card limit. Did you receive it?"
Me: "Not sure."
She: "U would like an increase?"
Me: "No thanks. It's enough."
I don't have anything against any bank trying to increase their business, but it's sad if the customers get into trouble thru over-spending on a higher credit limit. There are lots of cases....Hope you guys are prudent.
This UOB is fond of sending another type of enticement -- a real cheque for $X,000 which I can deposit into my acct right away. Tht becomes borrowed money..... sigh
I just tear the cheque up. Feels funny tho, to tear a real cheque up but I am not tempted.
Hello, $1.5 m for PM?
Somethng not right when SMRT pays its CEO $1.85m.
Corporate honcho pay has gotten excessive. Not uncommon to find CEOs of even small -cap companies paying themselves >$1 m.
It's a controversy waiting to blow up in their faces.
[hr]
[Joes 29-05-2011]:
If I have to come up with an absolute $ figure, i would say for PM a salary of S$1.5m in total.
Ministers --- around 800,000 - $1.2 m, depending on job responsibility and ministers' seniority.
MPs: $10K - $14 K, depending on whether you are a brand new MP (like Tin Pei Ling) or a veteran.
(Currently, it's a flat structure for MPs, which is too simplistic.)
