Skip to main content

Home/ SAJC11S28/ Does higher pay mean more responsibility?
koh enyan

Does higher pay mean more responsibility? - 31 views

started by koh enyan on 07 Feb 12
  • koh enyan
    #1 koh enyan on 07 Feb 12
     
    Barack Obama is Paid $400,000 (start of para 2) - Lee Hsien Loong (LHL) is paid $3.1 million. Does this mean that LHL has more responsibilities than BO? Why?
  • Shi Min Koh
    #2 Shi Min Koh on 07 Feb 12
     
    The wage of the leader does not necessarily reflects the level of responsibility of the leader.

    As a small island with an open economy, the Prime Minister of Singapore has a different work scope as the United States presidents. The obstacles that Singapore that faces includes limited resources and our open economy is directly linked to the level of international trade. Conversely, Obama is facing issues such as the debt of the country that is increasing with time, (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) as well as the consistently high unemployment rate of 8.3% in the country. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate). The responsibilities of the 2 leaders are so different that it cannot be compared via any measures, including wages.
  • Shi Min Koh
    #3 Shi Min Koh on 07 Feb 12
     
    president*
  • koh enyan
    #4 koh enyan on 07 Feb 12
     
    LHL may be paid more but he may not have more responsibilities than BO.

    Singapore is a dot on the map while America is a much larger country. There would be more land and more people under the care of the American government. Although both countries' governments must consider global responses, the responsibilities of the American government does seem larger. This is especially so because America is a leading country in terms of certain aspects such as development. America does not only govern itself but takes charge over issues in other countries through the UN, or military and so on. As a more global leader, BO may have more responsibilites than LHL.

    Although BO's pay is less than LHL's, the benefits of their jobs are different. In America, the government lives in the white house, is supplied with a car and has servants he does not need to pay wages to. In Singapore, a politicians pay is the total monetary value of what the politician receives. There are no public perks to the job.
    Thus, it is hard to determine whether the disparity between the two incomes are that high or not.
  • Eileen Teo
    #5 Eileen Teo on 07 Feb 12
     
    Higher ministerial pay does not necessarily mean more responsibility should be put on the leaders.

    In Singapore, the main objective of paying high salaries to leaders and ministers is to prevent corruption from taking place. The consequences of corruption are detrimental because it deters investment and hinders growth, spurs inequality and erodes macroeconomic and fiscal stability. In addition, corruption reduces the effectiveness of government decision-making, channeling urgently needed resources away from sectors such as healthcare and education to corruption-prone sectors or personal enrichment. Hence, high pay cheques are issued to these politicians to avoid economic and social detriments and does not necessarily mean higher responsibility on the leaders.
  • Shi Min Koh
    #6 Shi Min Koh on 07 Feb 12
     
    In addition, Singapore practices the "clean wage policy" where the pays of the ministers do not have any hidden perks or benefits. On the other hand, in the United States, there is not "clean wage policy" put in place. In Singapore, LHL is paid $3.1 million but he is not provided with other amenities such as housing or private transport and even servants. All of these need not be paid for by Obama. Conversly, BO is paid at a lower price but he is provided with housing (ie, the White House) and private transport. Thus, the wage received by the OB is not fully reflective of what he is "earning" from the government.

    Not only so, the cost of living in the 2 countries are different. Prices of goods and services are different and the amount of goods and services that the BO and LHL is different. For example, buying a house may be cheaper in some parts of USA than in Singapore. Hence, if we look at the purchasing power of the leaders based on their pay, LHL may not necessarily have a higher wage after considering the amount he has to spent on housing or travel.

    Thus, it is not fair for both LHL and Obama to compare their responsibilities by their wages.
  • Shi Min Koh
    #7 Shi Min Koh on 07 Feb 12
  • nur atiqah
    #8 nur atiqah on 07 Feb 12
     
    Though LHS has a higher pay, it does not mean he has more responsibilities. Every government's role is to keep its country on the right track and implement policies that help the country to remain competitive and not lag behind. Thus, money should not drive a minster to want to do his job better.

    Although Barack Obama has a lesser pay, it does not include other benefits he enjoy like official transport and free accommodation in the White House. Hence, in my opinion i think the pay does not matter, as long as it is sufficient for the minister and his family to lead a smooth and content life and the question of money does not become a burden or an issue to them. Thus, as long as minister are themselves content with their pay, there shouldn't be a problem in them carrying out their responsibilities efficiently.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the SAJC11S28 group