Goh Keng Swee might have felt being “short-changed” when comparing with what DPM Teo is now earning
Thanks to financial blogger Leong Sze Hian, we now know that founding minister and then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee’s annual salary was about $104,000 ($8,000 x 13 months with the 1 m…

Thanks to financial blogger Leong Sze Hian, we now know that founding minister and then-Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee's annual salary was about $104,000 ($8,000 x 13 months with the 1 month bonus) in 1973.

Note that this was after taking into account that Dr Goh's salary was substantially increased from $4,500 a month to $8,000 a month in 1973.
How big a sum was $104,000 in 1973? In this regard, we have to compare with a graduate's salary at the time.
The following advertisement was put up in 1973, advertising for hospital physiotherapists:

It advertised for a minimum of $465 a month for presumably a fresh graduate (degree/diploma) in physiotherapy. At the time, hospital physiotherapists were considered civil servants and were directly recruited by Public Service Commission (PSC).
Hence, the annual pay for a fresh physiotherapist would be $6,045 ($465 x 13 months) in 1973.
So, when we compare Goh Keng Swee's salary with that of a fresh physiotherapist, he would be earning 17.2 times more than what a fresh physiotherapist earned in 1973.
DPM Teo earns $1,870,000 a year
We now fast forward to present day. Currently, PM Lee's annual salary is $2,200,000 while that of DPM Teo Chee Hean is $1,870,000.
According to the Graduate Employment Survey published early this year, the median salary of a SIT graduate in physiotherapy is $3,300 a month or $42,900 a year (including the 13th month bonus).
So, that means, DPM Teo is making 43.6 times more than a fresh physiotherapist presently.
If we were to use the similar kind of present day salary comparison for Goh Keng Swee, then he ought to have been paid 43.6 times too like DPM Teo, or $263,562 a year ($20,274 a month) back in 1973.
And if Goh Keng Swee was still alive today, he might have felt being "short-changed" considering that he would be earning less than his younger counterpart Teo Chee Hean in relative terms, but contributing a lot more to Singapore than Teo did.
What do you think?
This entry was posted in Opinion, Politics.






