Originally posted by crazy monkey:
[b]Singapore Ministers Pay, Legitimised
Corruption
Singapore Review, 2 May 2003 (updated May 2005)
By Mellanie Hewlitt
The below table puts things back in proper perspective: (these are
basic figures as of July 2000 and did not include last year's pay
hikes or other benefits. Otherwise the updated numbers may well be
much larger)
1. Singapore President's Basic Salary US$1,483,000
(SGD$2,373,100)*a year
Singapore Prime Minister's Basic Salary US$1,100,000 (SGD1,958,000)
a year
Minister's Basic: US$655,530 to US$819,124 (SGD1,166,844 to
SGD1,458,040) a year
2. United States of America President: US$200,000 Vice President:
US$181,400 Cabinet Secretaries: US$157,000
3. United Kingdom Prime Minister: US$170,556 Ministers: US$146,299
Senior Civil Servants: US$262,438
4. Australia Prime Minister: US$137,060 Deputy Prime Minister:
US$111,439 Treasurer: US$102,682
5. Hong Kong Chief Executive : US$416,615 Top Civil Servant:
US$278,538 Financial Sec: US$315,077
Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000 *Singapore
President's salary which was updated in 2005 from the Singapore
Straits Times
In relative terms, less then 20% of Singaporeans here have take
home salaries
exceeding SGD100,000/- A YEAR.
In stark contrast, BASIC SALARY FOR A MINISTER STARTS AT
SGD1,166,844 A YEAR,OR JUST UNDER SGD100,000 A MONTH.
What these ministers earns in just ONE MONTH exceeds the ANNUAL
TAKE HOME
salary of 80% of Singapore's income earning population. Lets not
even begin to compare annual packages which will exceed SGD1
million easily.
With the above numbers and figures now in perspective, it is easier
to give substance to the words "leading by example". Several facts
are noteworthy here;
a) That the ministerial salaries are grossly out of proportion,
even when compared with their counterparts in much larger countries
(US and UK) who have far heavier responsibilities.
b) That these salary reductions were long overdue. In the past,
such handsome remuneration were "justified" on the back of
resounding performance. However, Singapore's economy has been in
the doldrums of a recession for several years now (with beginnings
reaching as far back as the 1997 Asian economic crisis). This
economic barometer is a rough measure of performance and implies
that ministerial salaries were due for review at least 3-4 years
ago.
c) That adjustments should be made to bring them back within the
industry benchmarks. Taking the salary of US vice president as a
rule of thumb, the percentage for reductions should start at 50% of
current pay. Even if a Singapore minister takes a 50% pay-cut, he
would still be earning much more then the US vice president.
d) The percentage reductions should greater then 50% if the intent
is to bring the salaries within the perspective of Singapore's
domestic scene.
With such inflated figures, it is understandable why the local
government controlled media (Singapore Press Holdings) have taken
pains to exclude mention of actual numbers for the world to see.
The numbers would be too glaring and no amount of window dressing
or creative writing could have reconciled these numbers with a sane
figure and restored credibility.
[/b]
If the above figure is true,then this is what the public have
been discussing,"openly corrupted"!!!
