Wee Cho Yaw has every right to give himself a pay bordering on
millions. Unlike TT Durai, however, he has a board of directors to
definitively evaluate his performance and determine whether he has
met his annual targets.
Can the same be said of our ministers? Which review board has been
commissioned to evaluate their performances?
My previous post already mentioned that private sector equivalents
must justify their salary through results, results which are
determined by others and not by themselves. If they are
instrumental in driving profits for their respective companies,
surely they will deserve their wage packages at the end of the
day?
How do our ministers justify their pay packages? A convenient peg
to top earners of private sector professionals without the
standards to meet?
Incidently, how 'best' do you define our public service?
Can it be compared to those in developed nations like Scandinavia
and NZ, where their leaders earn a pittance compared to the
millions our ministers take home, yet they produce better quality
standards in an adminstration system they can be proud of as a
nation?
Can Sim Wong Hoo and Ng Kai Wa even be used as Singaporean examples
of successful professionals to be salary-pegged by our ministers,
when our own country's short-sightedness rejected their visionary
attempts to introduce 'creative' sound into the home PC?
They are rightly reaping the rewards of their entrepreneurship in
more gracious pastures, but have not forgotten their home, nor
charity virtues.
Is SIA 'faltering' like you claim? Or are they in a mini-resurgence due to competition from budget
carriers and emerging contenders such as emirates and lufthansa, in
addition to rising fuel prices and wage costs?
At least get your facts right before you start making such
counter-claims.
Based on the track record of SIA over the years and faced with
stiffer competition than ever, surely the top brass in SIA have
some measure of performance to at least justify their salaries?
