PAP: Why did WP change stand on pay?

Dear Mr Lawrence Wong,

I refer to the 21 Jan 2012 Straits Times report of your PAP website note.

You asked the WP to be accountable and to be transparent on their change of stance on ministerial salary. If you seek accountability and transparency, you should first ask your fellow PAP MPs to explain why they told falsehoods in the parliament. DPM Teo, MP Vikram Nair and MP Edwin Tong all said the salary committee recommended $46,750 for the entry level minister. That is not true. The salary committee recommended $55,000 for the entry level minister and $46,750 for the senior minister of state.

Why take issue with WP’s 2011 manifesto to benchmark against developed countries when they continue to stress the need to compare against developed countries this time round?

Your claim of the WP proposal being around $1 million per year is also off. DPM Teo got it right with the figure of $852,500. Whether $852,500 is around $1 million is debatable. ‘Around’ for you may not be ‘around’ for someone else. What is certain is that the WP’s recommended $852,500 is around 25% less than the $1.1 million that PAP accepted. What the PAP accepted is indeed million dollar salary. What the WP proposed falls short of that. You are therefore wrong to say that the WP’s proposal is exactly the sum that they so fiercely attacked in the last elections. It is not even around the same, let alone exactly the same. Your insinuation of political opportunism behind the ‘WP change’ also doesn’t make sense. If you believed that previous WP campaigns were to whip up emotions against the government, political opportunism would require that the WP continue to whip up emotions, not change them.

You claimed that the WP’s MX9 grade peg is just as elitist as the review committee’s peg to the top 1,000 salaries. It is not. The MX9 grade is far from the top 1,000 salaries and is therefore far from being as elitist as pegging to the top 1,000 salaries.

You wondered if the difference between the PAP and the WP is about honesty versus hypocrisy. You must be referring to PAP dishonesty and hypocrisy versus WP honesty and sincerity. Aren’t PAP MP’s like DPM Teo, Vikram Nair and Edwin Tong being dishonest when they tried to pass off the salary recommended for the senior minister of state as the salary for the minister? The PAP hypocrisy stems from their denial of pay being important while continuing to cling on to pay tightly.

You found it disturbing that the WP was unfamiliar with the MX9 benchmark that they used to base their salary benchmark. Quite often, researching public information would not yield all the information needed and the opposition has to fight the battle blindfolded against a PAP supported by an army of civil servants. Perhaps better access to government officials and records for the opposition should help.


One Response to “PAP: Why did WP change stand on pay?”

  1. feedmetothefish Says:

    Thank you for putting forth the hypocrisy of PAP and its members especially its Publicity and Publications Sub-Committee Chairman. It is worth noting that in damage control, Lawrence Wong is damaging and hurting his party more! I hope he keeps keeping it up!


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: