Middle class Singaporeans are giving the government the thumbs down despite Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s prediction of a golden era in the coming years.
A SUCCESSION of unpopular policies – incredibly ill-timed, if not ill-planned – has reduced the government’s public popularity to the lowest level in many years.
It is ironic because the economy and the job market are on a roll, which should have resulted in a high level of optimism and improved feelings for the ruling People’s Action Party.
Instead the opposite is happening.
The sentiments among middle class Singaporeans have reached one of their lowest points despite Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s prediction of a “golden era” in the coming years.
Four recent factors have caused the plunge in public unhappiness.
(1) Cabinet’s 21% pay rise
The decision to raise the salaries of Cabinet ministers, already by far the highest in the world, by a whopping 21%, could not have come at a more painful time for Singaporeans who are struggling with widespread price increases.
(2) GST increases
The July increase in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 5% to 7%, led to an orgy of price increases covering most goods and services in Singapore.
The current inflation, the worst in 12 years, is partly imported but is blamed on the government because it has been increasing public fees, ranging from healthcare to stamps.
(3) Abandoned annuities scheme
After a public backlash, the government had to redraw a plan that would have Singaporeans put a part of their CPF (Central Provident Fund) into an annuities scheme that will pay S$250-S$300 (RM575-RM690) a month until death – or when they reach 85.
It was hugely unpopular because of the late drawdown (only 60,000 Singaporeans live that long) and, if the holder dies before 85, the unused money goes to others in the pool, not to his estate.
It was arguably one of the worst ideas from the PAP government and was abandoned. A new scheme is being considered to replace it.
(4) Shortage, over-crowdedness.
The gathering foreign influx (which has pushed the population to 4.68 million) is beginning to cause resentment – mostly against the government – as well as over-crowding and some shortages.
Singaporeans are likely to continue to have to bear and grin it since, like inflation, it is likely to continue into future years.
Shaping into the hottest topic is, however, the Cabinet pay rise – the second in two years – which would have brought down a government in most other countries.
It raised the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s annual salary to S$3.76mil (RM8.64mil) and President S.R. Nathan’s to S$3.87mil (RM8.89mil), while Cabinet ministers start at $1.96mil (RM4.50mil) a year.
(By comparison, US President George W Bush earns an annual salary of US$400,000 (RM1.3mil) or one-seventh of what Lee gets).
Despite their compliant nature, Singaporeans have reacted angrily to the way their leaders pay themselves, feelings that I have not encountered in 25 years’ of reporting Singapore.
Even PAP supporters are wondering why their political leaders have embarked on such an obviously politically dangerous course.
“The question is why? Why would people, very smart and talented people, with all the money in the world to spend, money they are not likely to finish spending in their whole life, still crave for more money?” a blogger asked.
Another said: “Actually if they can justify it well, I wouldn’t mind them getting more pay, but where is the justification? Many people here earn in a month less than what a minister gets in just half a day.”
The year-end vibrancy of the top leaders who are benefiting from the windfall, contrasts sharply with a despondent mood among the poorer heartlanders badly hit by rising prices.
More people have been asking their members of Parliament for help. Reports of rising poverty have prompted one minister to say: “In Singapore, no one needs to starve.”
For months Singaporeans have felt pressured by the growing impact of the increasing number of foreigners here, including over-crowding and shortages, not to mention a reduction of opportunities.
For the government, this souring of the electorate’s mood is worrying because it is over major bread-and-butter matters – prices, retirement savings, jobs – which can erode its power base.
One of Singapore’s most admired writers, Catherine Lim, has added her voice to the public criticism on the way Singapore is heading.
A climate of fear that stops citizens from speaking out against the government could eventually lead to the decline of Singapore, she said.
Lim praised the government for its economic achievements but said its Achilles’ heel could be its suppression of criticism, using defamation suits against opposition politicians as well as bans on protests.
“A compliant, fearful population that has never learnt to be politically savvy could spell the doom of Singapore,” Lim told Reuters in an interview.
The 65-year-old Malaysian-born author said the worst-case scenario would be for a future leader to get away with corruption “because of the ingrained, unquestioning trust of a fearful, overly dependent people”.
Lim said: “You could have a case of younger Singaporeans creating unrest because they do not have an outlet.
“What Singapore wants is managed creativity. So, not only would those really creative people not want to come, but those who are here want to get out.”
For first time he said he left cabinet because of disagreement.
By Seah Chiang Nee.
Dec 16, 2007
In several little-noticed paragraphs highlighted by TODAY newspaper, Mr. S. Dhanabalan admitted in a dialogue session that he left the government because of disagreements within the leadership.
It was mentioned in quick passing and no details were given in the Q-and-A session with The Straits Times.
The thrust of his message was integrity in the government, during which he said:
”I think Singapore is probably one of the few places in the world where there is the least conflict because the political leadership is honest.
“It believes in having to tell the truth...But I do not deny that there will be conflicts and you just have to make your stand clear,' he said.
The session ended with Mr. Patrick Daniel, Editor-in-Chief, who chaired the dialogue, asking him why he quit politics.
“All I would say is that I had differences which I felt I could not live with. Therefore, I thought it was best to step down and work with the leadership in other ways,” he said.
This was the first time that Mr. Dhanabalan has gone public to speak on the reason why he left the cabinet.
The Straits Times downplayed this part, putting this passage almost at the end of the story.
TODAY newspaper highlighted it, with the comment that “in the seemingly-unexciting world of Singapore politics, some unexpected gems do pop up.
“The reader who bothered to plough through (the ST) report .. would have made this rare find on why the former minister left the Cabinet in 1992: Differences with the leadership that he could not live with.
“In a political system in which exit management is practised with a handshake, a smile and a tacit understanding not to talk publicly about departures, Mr Dhanabalan's candour was unusual.
“But don't expect others who have left or were forced to quit to come out of the woodwork.
”The fear of how robustly the other side will tell its story, and the Singapore culture of not going against the establishment will weigh against others going down Mr. Dhanabalan's route.
The nature of the disagreement was not stated, but Singaporeans recall the widespread rumour, which was dismissed by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong that in 1990 Mr Lee Hsien Loong had (before he became Prime Minister) slapped Mr. Dhanabalan.
In a National Day Rally years later PM Goh Chok Tong, said "You may also have heard this old story about Loong {Referring to DPM Lee}. In case you have not, I'll tell you now.
”Back in 1990, Loong had a quarrel with Richard Hu. S. Dhanabalan sided with Richard. Loong lost his temper.
”He reached across the table and gave Dhanabalan a tight slap. The whole Cabinet was thrown into commotion.
“I then forced Loong to apologise. I must be suffering from amnesia. I just cannot remember this incident. Now you know how creative Singaporeans are."
The ‘slapping incident’ was extracted from a recent book by Australian Ross Worthington.
Dhanabalan’s departure was a surprise to Singaporeans.
He was one of four ministers - Tony Tan, Ong Teng Cheong, Goh Chok Tong and S. Dhanabalan – who were originally short-listed to succeed Mr. Lee Kuan Yew in 1990.
In his public account of why he chose them and what he felt were their strengths and weaknesses, Lee said his preferred successor was Tony Tan.
He felt that while the other three were all of Prime Ministerial material, each had a particular weakness:
* Goh was too stiff, lacking eloquence in public speaking, * Ong was too closely aligned with the Chinese-speaking masses, lacking appeal to other communities. * On Dhanabalan, Lee felt the 76% ethnic Chinese electorate was not yet ready for an Indian Prime Minister. Lee left the ultimate decision to the second generation ministers themselves, who went on to choose Goh.
(Dhanabalan is a Singaporean of Tamil Indian descent. A devout Christian (Baptist), he is married to Christine Tan Khoon Hiap and they have one son and one daughter.
Nation, Inc. Steve McGookin Forbes.com 16th Dec 07
When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair as British prime minister earlier this year, he got an overnight raise of about US$100,000 a year, increasing the 136,677-pounds salary he earned as Chancellor of the Exchequer to 187,611 pounds (US$375,222).
The hike made Brown one of Europe’s highest-paid prime ministers, but according to research by global consultants Hay Group, he is still lagging when it comes to equivalent leadership positions in the private sector.
The Hay Group survey also found that Brown suffers compared with other government leaders when his pay is related to the size of the job they have to do. Brown’s task in managing the British bureaucracy, the report says, is second only to that facing French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Sarkozy’s own salary was recently doubled to 240,000 euros (US$346,000, or 167,500 pounds) following a vote in Parliament only a few months after he took office.
The Hay Group report said that the British PM earns less than 10% of the salaries that private sector CEOs can expect for performing similar size roles in the U.K. - one of the lowest such ratios in Europe and behind his counterparts in Holland (Jan Peter Balkenende), Finland (Matti Vanhanen) and Greece (Kostas Karamanlis).
Yet size of the country does not always directly equate to the compensation paid to its leader. In a smaller country like Ireland, for example, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern was recently awarded a salary increase that would take his pay to 310,000 euros (217,000 pounds, or US$434,000). But the rise, which would have put him at the top of the European pay league for prime ministers, was later deferred by a year.
Philip Cohen, the Hay Group consultant responsible for the research, said, “At senior level in the private sector, a bigger job tends to mean a bigger salary. This is not so to the same extent in government.”
Obviously the leaders’ salary packages don’t take into account things like travel, accommodation and other living expenses, but the Hay Group said the disparity with the private sector is even wider when performance bonuses are taken into account. As CEO of “UK Plc,” the study says, Brown would likely benefit from a bonus that could potentially add as much as 1.5 million pounds to a chief executive’s pay package, depending on performance.
And the comparison is even more stark when set against potential corporate earnings in the U.S.
“The yawning pay gap at the very top level in U.K. government has to be a concern in the long term,” Cohen said. “Faced with salaries potentially running into millions, or a salary of around 180,000 pounds, where will tomorrow’s leaders look to develop their careers, to major corporate or government?”
Nevertheless, politicians of all stripes will say that a calling to public service, the exercise of power and the opportunity to shape their nation’s destiny should transcend considerations of simple financial reward. And, of course, there is the equivalent of the benevolent, “$1-a-year” CEOs.
A week after taking office in 2006, Bolivian President Evo Morales made good on a campaign pledge and cut his salary in half, to just over US$1,800 a month. While a symbolic move, designed to make more money available to pay teachers, it had the effect of imposing a pay cut on other members of his government and officials, since no one can earn more than the president.
Many leaders, of course, find a high-profile way of raising money and giving back after their elected career, through foundations or charity work - former U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, or former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, as well as sitting Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, while Tony Blair and France’s Jacques Chirac, who both recently left office, are understood to be looking at setting up their own organizations.
Forbes’ recent list of the Richest Royals obviously includes figures who would be considered “leaders” of their countries, but what do citizens pay for elected world leaders?
The U.S. taxpayer gives President George W. Bush US$400,000 a year, while his No. 2, Dick Cheney, pulls down US$208,575 for being a heartbeat away from leading the free world.
By contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official salary is just over US$81,000, and a recent formal “wealth declaration” showed that his overall asset value had declined during his second term in office.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was named Forbes’ “most powerful woman” for the second straight year, and who recently was critical of excessive executive salaries in the private sector, is paid around US$318,000.
In Japan, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said last September that he would take a 30% pay cut on his salary of US$355,000, and that other ministers would give up 10% cent of their pay.
But the top of the tree by some degree is Singapore Premier Lee Hsien Loong, following a controversial round of pay increases, is set to be receiving a salary of US$2.65 million (excluding performance bonus & pension) by the end of next year.
3 comments:
Public cry foul over recent policies
Saturday December 22, 2007
Insight: Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Middle class Singaporeans are giving the government the thumbs down despite Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s prediction of a golden era in the coming years.
A SUCCESSION of unpopular policies – incredibly ill-timed, if not ill-planned – has reduced the government’s public popularity to the lowest level in many years.
It is ironic because the economy and the job market are on a roll, which should have resulted in a high level of optimism and improved feelings for the ruling People’s Action Party.
Instead the opposite is happening.
The sentiments among middle class Singaporeans have reached one of their lowest points despite Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s prediction of a “golden era” in the coming years.
Four recent factors have caused the plunge in public unhappiness.
(1) Cabinet’s 21% pay rise
The decision to raise the salaries of Cabinet ministers, already by far the highest in the world, by a whopping 21%, could not have come at a more painful time for Singaporeans who are struggling with widespread price increases.
(2) GST increases
The July increase in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 5% to 7%, led to an orgy of price increases covering most goods and services in Singapore.
The current inflation, the worst in 12 years, is partly imported but is blamed on the government because it has been increasing public fees, ranging from healthcare to stamps.
(3) Abandoned annuities scheme
After a public backlash, the government had to redraw a plan that would have Singaporeans put a part of their CPF (Central Provident Fund) into an annuities scheme that will pay S$250-S$300 (RM575-RM690) a month until death – or when they reach 85.
It was hugely unpopular because of the late drawdown (only 60,000 Singaporeans live that long) and, if the holder dies before 85, the unused money goes to others in the pool, not to his estate.
It was arguably one of the worst ideas from the PAP government and was abandoned. A new scheme is being considered to replace it.
(4) Shortage, over-crowdedness.
The gathering foreign influx (which has pushed the population to 4.68 million) is beginning to cause resentment – mostly against the government – as well as over-crowding and some shortages.
Singaporeans are likely to continue to have to bear and grin it since, like inflation, it is likely to continue into future years.
Shaping into the hottest topic is, however, the Cabinet pay rise – the second in two years – which would have brought down a government in most other countries.
It raised the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s annual salary to S$3.76mil (RM8.64mil) and President S.R. Nathan’s to S$3.87mil (RM8.89mil), while Cabinet ministers start at $1.96mil (RM4.50mil) a year.
(By comparison, US President George W Bush earns an annual salary of US$400,000 (RM1.3mil) or one-seventh of what Lee gets).
Despite their compliant nature, Singaporeans have reacted angrily to the way their leaders pay themselves, feelings that I have not encountered in 25 years’ of reporting Singapore.
Even PAP supporters are wondering why their political leaders have embarked on such an obviously politically dangerous course.
“The question is why? Why would people, very smart and talented people, with all the money in the world to spend, money they are not likely to finish spending in their whole life, still crave for more money?” a blogger asked.
Another said: “Actually if they can justify it well, I wouldn’t mind them getting more pay, but where is the justification? Many people here earn in a month less than what a minister gets in just half a day.”
The year-end vibrancy of the top leaders who are benefiting from the windfall, contrasts sharply with a despondent mood among the poorer heartlanders badly hit by rising prices.
More people have been asking their members of Parliament for help. Reports of rising poverty have prompted one minister to say: “In Singapore, no one needs to starve.”
For months Singaporeans have felt pressured by the growing impact of the increasing number of foreigners here, including over-crowding and shortages, not to mention a reduction of opportunities.
For the government, this souring of the electorate’s mood is worrying because it is over major bread-and-butter matters – prices, retirement savings, jobs – which can erode its power base.
One of Singapore’s most admired writers, Catherine Lim, has added her voice to the public criticism on the way Singapore is heading.
A climate of fear that stops citizens from speaking out against the government could eventually lead to the decline of Singapore, she said.
Lim praised the government for its economic achievements but said its Achilles’ heel could be its suppression of criticism, using defamation suits against opposition politicians as well as bans on protests.
“A compliant, fearful population that has never learnt to be politically savvy could spell the doom of Singapore,” Lim told Reuters in an interview.
The 65-year-old Malaysian-born author said the worst-case scenario would be for a future leader to get away with corruption “because of the ingrained, unquestioning trust of a fearful, overly dependent people”.
Lim said: “You could have a case of younger Singaporeans creating unrest because they do not have an outlet.
“What Singapore wants is managed creativity. So, not only would those really creative people not want to come, but those who are here want to get out.”
Dhanabalan: ‘Why I quit’
For first time he said he left cabinet because of disagreement.
By Seah Chiang Nee.
Dec 16, 2007
In several little-noticed paragraphs highlighted by TODAY newspaper, Mr. S. Dhanabalan admitted in a dialogue session that he left the government because of disagreements within the leadership.
It was mentioned in quick passing and no details were given in the Q-and-A session with The Straits Times.
The thrust of his message was integrity in the government, during which he said:
”I think Singapore is probably one of the few places in the world where there is the least conflict because the political leadership is honest.
“It believes in having to tell the truth...But I do not deny that there will be conflicts and you just have to make your stand clear,' he said.
The session ended with Mr. Patrick Daniel, Editor-in-Chief, who chaired the dialogue, asking him why he quit politics.
“All I would say is that I had differences which I felt I could not live with. Therefore, I thought it was best to step down and work with the leadership in other ways,” he said.
This was the first time that Mr. Dhanabalan has gone public to speak on the reason why he left the cabinet.
The Straits Times downplayed this part, putting this passage almost at the end of the story.
TODAY newspaper highlighted it, with the comment that “in the seemingly-unexciting world of Singapore politics, some unexpected gems do pop up.
“The reader who bothered to plough through (the ST) report .. would have made this rare find on why the former minister left the Cabinet in 1992: Differences with the leadership that he could not live with.
“In a political system in which exit management is practised with a handshake, a smile and a tacit understanding not to talk publicly about departures, Mr Dhanabalan's candour was unusual.
“But don't expect others who have left or were forced to quit to come out of the woodwork.
”The fear of how robustly the other side will tell its story, and the Singapore culture of not going against the establishment will weigh against others going down Mr. Dhanabalan's route.
The nature of the disagreement was not stated, but Singaporeans recall the widespread rumour, which was dismissed by Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong that in 1990 Mr Lee Hsien Loong had (before he became Prime Minister) slapped Mr. Dhanabalan.
In a National Day Rally years later PM Goh Chok Tong, said "You may also have heard this old story about Loong {Referring to DPM Lee}. In case you have not, I'll tell you now.
”Back in 1990, Loong had a quarrel with Richard Hu. S. Dhanabalan sided with Richard. Loong lost his temper.
”He reached across the table and gave Dhanabalan a tight slap. The whole Cabinet was thrown into commotion.
“I then forced Loong to apologise. I must be suffering from amnesia. I just cannot remember this incident. Now you know how creative Singaporeans are."
The ‘slapping incident’ was extracted from a recent book by Australian Ross Worthington.
Dhanabalan’s departure was a surprise to Singaporeans.
He was one of four ministers - Tony Tan, Ong Teng Cheong, Goh Chok Tong and S. Dhanabalan – who were originally short-listed to succeed Mr. Lee Kuan Yew in 1990.
In his public account of why he chose them and what he felt were their strengths and weaknesses, Lee said his preferred successor was Tony Tan.
He felt that while the other three were all of Prime Ministerial material, each had a particular weakness:
* Goh was too stiff, lacking eloquence in public speaking,
* Ong was too closely aligned with the Chinese-speaking masses, lacking appeal to other communities.
* On Dhanabalan, Lee felt the 76% ethnic Chinese electorate was not yet ready for an Indian Prime Minister. Lee left the ultimate decision to the second generation ministers themselves, who went on to choose Goh.
(Dhanabalan is a Singaporean of Tamil Indian descent. A devout Christian (Baptist), he is married to Christine Tan Khoon Hiap and they have one son and one daughter.
Nation, Inc.
Steve McGookin
Forbes.com
16th Dec 07
When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair as British prime minister earlier this year, he got an overnight raise of about US$100,000 a year, increasing the 136,677-pounds salary he earned as Chancellor of the Exchequer to 187,611 pounds (US$375,222).
The hike made Brown one of Europe’s highest-paid prime ministers, but according to research by global consultants Hay Group, he is still lagging when it comes to equivalent leadership positions in the private sector.
The Hay Group survey also found that Brown suffers compared with other government leaders when his pay is related to the size of the job they have to do. Brown’s task in managing the British bureaucracy, the report says, is second only to that facing French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Sarkozy’s own salary was recently doubled to 240,000 euros (US$346,000, or 167,500 pounds) following a vote in Parliament only a few months after he took office.
The Hay Group report said that the British PM earns less than 10% of the salaries that private sector CEOs can expect for performing similar size roles in the U.K. - one of the lowest such ratios in Europe and behind his counterparts in Holland (Jan Peter Balkenende), Finland (Matti Vanhanen) and Greece (Kostas Karamanlis).
Yet size of the country does not always directly equate to the compensation paid to its leader. In a smaller country like Ireland, for example, Prime Minister Bertie Ahern was recently awarded a salary increase that would take his pay to 310,000 euros (217,000 pounds, or US$434,000). But the rise, which would have put him at the top of the European pay league for prime ministers, was later deferred by a year.
Philip Cohen, the Hay Group consultant responsible for the research, said, “At senior level in the private sector, a bigger job tends to mean a bigger salary. This is not so to the same extent in government.”
Obviously the leaders’ salary packages don’t take into account things like travel, accommodation and other living expenses, but the Hay Group said the disparity with the private sector is even wider when performance bonuses are taken into account. As CEO of “UK Plc,” the study says, Brown would likely benefit from a bonus that could potentially add as much as 1.5 million pounds to a chief executive’s pay package, depending on performance.
And the comparison is even more stark when set against potential corporate earnings in the U.S.
“The yawning pay gap at the very top level in U.K. government has to be a concern in the long term,” Cohen said. “Faced with salaries potentially running into millions, or a salary of around 180,000 pounds, where will tomorrow’s leaders look to develop their careers, to major corporate or government?”
Nevertheless, politicians of all stripes will say that a calling to public service, the exercise of power and the opportunity to shape their nation’s destiny should transcend considerations of simple financial reward. And, of course, there is the equivalent of the benevolent, “$1-a-year” CEOs.
A week after taking office in 2006, Bolivian President Evo Morales made good on a campaign pledge and cut his salary in half, to just over US$1,800 a month. While a symbolic move, designed to make more money available to pay teachers, it had the effect of imposing a pay cut on other members of his government and officials, since no one can earn more than the president.
Many leaders, of course, find a high-profile way of raising money and giving back after their elected career, through foundations or charity work - former U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, or former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, as well as sitting Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, while Tony Blair and France’s Jacques Chirac, who both recently left office, are understood to be looking at setting up their own organizations.
Forbes’ recent list of the Richest Royals obviously includes figures who would be considered “leaders” of their countries, but what do citizens pay for elected world leaders?
The U.S. taxpayer gives President George W. Bush US$400,000 a year, while his No. 2, Dick Cheney, pulls down US$208,575 for being a heartbeat away from leading the free world.
By contrast, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s official salary is just over US$81,000, and a recent formal “wealth declaration” showed that his overall asset value had declined during his second term in office.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was named Forbes’ “most powerful woman” for the second straight year, and who recently was critical of excessive executive salaries in the private sector, is paid around US$318,000.
In Japan, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said last September that he would take a 30% pay cut on his salary of US$355,000, and that other ministers would give up 10% cent of their pay.
But the top of the tree by some degree is Singapore Premier Lee Hsien Loong, following a controversial round of pay increases, is set to be receiving a salary of US$2.65 million (excluding performance bonus & pension) by the end of next year.
Post a Comment