Pension scheme

For a country not known for being a welfare state, we have seen very welfar-ish schemes reserved solely for the top echelons of the ruling party. Why this differentiation? Minister Teo Chee Heng was in the news today ‘explaining’ the pension scheme for ministers as about 10% of the annual salary. By speculation, a retired minister gets to enjoy around $200,000 a year (assuming an average salary of $2 million a year for a minister) or about $17,000 a month until the day he pass away.

DPM Teo said that there was a need for a pension scheme for senior public servants: “There’s a very specific reason for a small group of officers to still be on pensions, because there is a premium in this case for long-term service in order to provide consistency of policy and implementation.”

So does this statement means that retired ministers are never really ‘retired from service’ and continue to poke their heads into the jobs of current ministers? Is the ruling party so paternalistic that even ministers, who supposedly possess the intellect and maturity to lead ministries, need someone to mentor him? With someone constantly looking down over your shoulders, how does a minister effectively work on policy renewal and changes? Too many cooks spoil the broth. We have already seen how the PAP scored own goals with differing views between PM Lee, SM Goh and grand master MM Lee. To common Singaporeans, whose views should they listen to? PM Lee? Or his father? Who sets the direction? This paternalism penetrated deeply into the Singapore society and one wonders why Singaporeans are not creative, risk taking or able to offer multiple views.

In summary, to quote from a friend of mine, “Why do the ministers need pension schemes when they were already paid millions of dollars a year, 4 times more than the United States president, when they were in service?”

What is making thing worse, and the idiocracy of having a one-party rule shows up on this technicality of the pension scheme as revealed by the letter from the Prime Ministers’ Office in Straits Times:

The Parliamentary Pensions Act, as amended in 1982, provides for an office- holder to receive a pension at the age of 55, should he qualify for one, while he continues to hold office. This provision is being reviewed.

How on earth can you pay a minister still in office earning millions, an additional 10% in the form of pension when he haven’t retire???? This ridiculous payment scheme must be, once again, uniquely PAP.

  1. Daft Singaporean
    May 16, 2011 at 5:49 am

    This must be reviewed to take in account of the lowest 10% Singaporeans situation.

  1. May 20, 2011 at 2:43 am

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: