TR EMERITUS

1. The government is carrying out a review of ministers' salaries in 2023. The last review was carried out in 2017. The actual review is for the top political officer bearers, but the public generally refers to them as "ministers". 2. An earlier review in 2012 made a major adjustment. It reduced the salary of the prime minister and president. If I remembered correctly, the revised salaries were still pegged to the top salaries in the private sector. However, the revised salaries were still high by international standards. 3. At the salary review in 2023, it would be more acceptable to peg the salary of the prime minister to a certain multiple of the median income. 4. The median monthly income from work in Singapore was $4,680 in 2021, or $56,000 annually. These figures are inclusive of CPF contributions from employers. 5. I suggest that the salary of the prime minister be pegged at 15 times of the median income. This would work out of $840,000. The salary of the other ministers and of the president should be pegged at 80% or 90% of the prime minister's salary, depending on responsibility. 6. My suggested formula will produce a lower salary for the ministers compared to what they earn now. However, they will still be the highest in the world. 7. The use of a formula that is pegged to median income will be simpler (compared to the top salaries). It would also more acceptable to the people. 8. Some people suggested that the salary should be pegged to the lower quartile but a higher multiple could be used. They said that it would focus the minister's attention to raising the salaries of the lower income. I think that this would be somewhat complicated, as the lower quarter would include part time and casual workers. It is better to deal with the inequality separately. 9. Over the past 10 years, the median income has actually risen 44%, or 3.7% per annum, from $3,249 in 2011. This benchmark is likely to reflect the general increase in wages, and will be more stable compared to a benchmark that is based on top salaries.   Tan Kin Lian      Read More →

It doesn't need to take an expert 2 years to conclude that the vaccines (V) will be useless in preventing Covid-19 (CV). It's pure logic that it can't prevent infec because of the nature of RNA virus which will mutate extremely fast. I have already made such conclusion just 2 to 3 months after they started the vaccination program. Data doesn't lie at all. Believe in Nature's Creation and our own body's natural immune system. If you are young and healthy, there is really not much of a risk of severe illness or death at all. I am UnV Pure Blood, Officially Uninfec. I am definitely not the physically fittest person at my age, nor I claim to be the healthiest fellow in town. But I am here, I didn't die suddenly nor getting infec with serious symptoms. It's really madness for these Experts to say we need to vaccinate every 2 months. Do they really know science or logic?   Goh Meng Seng      Read More →

The Land Acquisition Act, while it gave the government a free hand to build the city, is highly controversial, to say the least. Implemented in 1967, it gave the government powers to acquire land for “public benefit, or for any work or undertaking that is of public utility or public interest, or for any residential, commercial or industrial purpose”. An amendment in 1973 set compensation for the value of acquired land at the market price as at 30 Nov, 1973. (Subsequent adjustments were made in 1986 and 1995). The government thus acquired large swathes of land at prices independent of market conditions as well as landowners’ purchase price. Indeed, some landowners had purchased their land at market prices but were compensated at historical prices and ended up with loan repayments for land acquired by the government. But the most controversial part was that land was acquired on a selective basis, based on the infrastructural plans of the state. But plans are made by people. It begs the question of why land at Ghim Moh had to be acquired but not land at nearby Bukit Timah. Or why Toa Payoh, Bishan, Ang Mo Kio, Woodlands and not the area around Caldecott Hill, Seletar, Teachers Estate or Serangoon Gardens. The people who had their land acquired, not only did not receive fair compensation, they did not enjoy the appreciation of the value of the land had it not been acquired, unlike the people whose land were not acquired. After 4 or 5 decades, we are talking of fortunes lost and fortunes made. Those who had their land acquired have nothing much to pass on to their children. To add insult to injury, their children will have to fork out current market price for land, albeit at a small discount, just to buy an HDB flat, tying themselves to 20 to 30 years of loan. On the other hand, those whose land were not acquired, can pass them to their children and grandchildren, who thus will have a head start in life. Talk about meritocracy! Granted that many people made their own fortunes, but it cannot be denied that the Land Acquisition Act helped create the haves and the have-nots, the landed-property class and the HDB class. In one fell swoop, destinies were altered, affecting not only the pioneer generation, but generations thereafter. Mr Desmond Lee claims that charging historical price for land when pricing BTO flats is tantamount to raiding state reserves. But he should remember that the same land was taken from the people at great cost to them and their offsprings. Indeed, who raided who?   Foong Swee Fong      Read More →