Why Ministers’ Pay Should Not Be Cut

Again our PM has displayed great sensitivity.

Days after ditching Mah, Raymond Lim and Wong Kan Seng, PM Lee has set up a private sector committee to “review” ministerial pay.

While I’m still of the opinion that the absolute level of ministerial pay is not really the issue, the astute PM is aware that he has to be seen to be doing something to assuage the population’s anger.

Cuts are almost certain. The only question is how much.

It can’t be 3% or 5%, that won’t work. So it’s got to be at least 15-20%.

How much will that save? If you have 15 ministers, each of whom makes $2m a year on average, 20% of $30m is $6m.

Hardly a dent in the Budget!

Yet the cut will allow PAP to convince the population that they really listened to feedback and that they have reformed.

One less area for the “opposition” to score points in future. And it will help extend the grip of the PAP for another 50 years.

Is that what “opposition” supporters really want?


About politicalwritings

Someone who sees beyond PAP and "opposition" in Singapore politics. To understand more please see the Top 10 link below.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Why Ministers’ Pay Should Not Be Cut

  1. Pingback: Daily SG: 24 May 2011 » The Singapore Daily

  2. Peanut Salary says:

    I think the PM salary will need to cut down to a peanut (as defined by Mrs ESM) before it makes any sense. I can’t imagine how can a PM in Singapore be worth and paid more than a President of USA.

  3. bluexspore says:

    This logic is too cynical. Whether something ought to be done should be determined by whether it benefits Singaporeans and not whether it benefits ‘opposition’. If benchmarking Minister salary to say 50 x median salary will attract the right sort of people to become politicians and drive them to work towards improving Singaporeans’ income levels, it should be done and PAP rightly should be given credit for it. Let’s look at benefits to Singaporeans, rather than PAP or ‘opposition’.

  4. Hu says:

    ” So it’s got to be at least 15-20%.” who says so ? it’s got to be at least 50-80% before the matter becomes a non-issue. anything less will be ammo for the opposition come 2016.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s