World class banks, “peanuts” salaries

In China, Corporate governance, Temasek on 03/04/2015 at 5:00 am

China banks’ CEOs are monkeys? Temasek has significant stakes in three of them.



Exhibits from FT


Lex chinese banks

  1. A very good example to illustrate why it is important to pay politicians a publicly contentious wage.

    Paying a CEO salary that the average man finds equitable, makes it understandable and to the average man if the CEO “gains” indirectly via abuse of power, and forgiveable if the performance is below average.

    Should always pay leaders enough to make the global citizen jealous. Then scrutinise and crucify him publicly if he steals. And retaining every right to explicitly outwardly and publicly demand exceptional and unreasonably outstanding performance from them.

    • Doesn’t work here does it? Lui is still in his job. Raymond Lim, Mah bow tan and Kan Seng got retired after GE. GCT drew salary for doing bugger-all for yrs. Compare that with the CEOs that get fired for underperformance.

  2. still works doesn’t it? GCT won 3 elections, put in place medisave and the vehicle quota system. lead the country and kept PAP effectivethrough AFC 1997 Dotcom Bust 2002. bugger-all will be sweeping statement. For the rest as you said. some retired. PAP also suffered at the polls. Aljunied was lost. You wouldn’t say that is a light slap on the wrist.

    from a private citizen perspective some ministers’ performance was mediocre ( not bad as in 1MDB Najib Jho Low bad ), however portfolio theory not all ministers can be outstanding. And the fact that educated people like you are harshly judging mediocre performance ( by deeming it as bugger-all ) is exactly then general sentiment that can be validly justified and given the loudest volume without restraint only when the ministers’ salaries are perceived as “too high”.

    Point being, if you below market rated all these “mediocrity” via salaries from the outset, i am sure the public backlash against mediocre performance will be lighter and not as exacting.

    Therein is the slippery slope, you save a few hundred thousand a year by optimising the ministers’ salaries, and a few generations down they justify it right to siphon off billions indirectly through privatisation and cronism via early retirement because they feel under rewarded for the scrutiny of public service.

    Public servants should be paid well, face constant scrutiny, and yet still feel it’s rewarding economically and socially to serve for life ( ideally never into private sector ). That as a private citizen I feel will keep me assured that we have the best leaders.

    The strongest ones with the broadest shoulders must always be made willing economically and feel compelled by social duty to take the brunt of the public grunts.

    • PAP administration ahould be happy at yr attitude that the system of making sure the ministers are kept accountable )))). I’m more demanding LOL.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: