This is the hot topic of the week.
Any MP or media able to score points here will be able to increase their profile.
As long its constructive, its will be good.
How to judge whether ministers' bonus?
Country income improved?
But if only 30% of the population got increment and bonus...the rest doesn't.
Does that considered good performance results?
My thoughts:
I think any elected Member of Parliament should be full time.
And no 'side lines' thus to avoid any conflict of interests...should it arises.
With 'side lines'...will they have enough time to serve their ward?
Their allowance is already more than majority of the population.
Once a week meet the people of their ward...is it enough?
This way, I doubt they will be able to see all the people in their ward in their 5years term.
As for ministers' pay?
How much is enough to draw talent?
Talent...how do you judge talent?
Educational level?
How much one person earned?
How good they are in their field?
Frankly, not everyone can do public service.
But public service isn't about money.
Like what JFK had said:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
Of cos the pay has to be reasonable.
But how much is reasonable?
Pegging to top 1000 or 20% is earners' income smacks of elitism as Ms Denise Phua had said.
But do people at that percentage understand people from the other side?
Lets just be as neutral as possible to be able to see the pro and con of both sides.
But the neutrals will usually be bashed by both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment