A minister in the Singapore government presently receives $1.2 million in salary. This is according to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as reported by the Straits Times on March 23, 2007 – “Top govt salaries far behind private sector’s”:
“A minister should be drawing $2.2 million a year or more, according to benchmarks approved by Parliament in 1994 to ensure competitive salaries for a competent and honest government.”
Although increasing ministers salaries may give rise to what the Straits Times calls “knee jerk reactionary views” from the public, and “visceral reaction in many quarters” (ST, march 24 2007, Insight), one should seek to understand why this is so.
And I would offer that there are good reasons for these sentiments.
GST increase
The government had recently announced an increase in the Goods & Services Tax (GST) rate. The reason given was that the government needed the money to fund certain programmes like Workfare and infrastructure costs pertaining to an ageing population.
Thus, the government was effectively saying that they will not have enough money if they do not raise the GST.
Announcing a rise in ministers’ salaries so soon after the announcement of a GST hike has raise disquiet among some quarters. Indeed, some people have asked if the GST hike is to fund the increase in ministers’ pay. And why, if we do not have enough money for Workfare and other programmes, are we able to raise ministers’ salaries?
Public Assistance Schemes
The Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports recently raised the amount of public assistance from $260 to $290 per month, for persons living alone without any dependents. A mere $30 increase, or an extra $1 per day for those on the scheme.
Even PAP MP Dr Lily Neo found this inadequate and has continued to ask for more for such people. The government, however, has been silent on her request. We are therefore unsure if the government will be raising the amount further. Dr Neo has asked for $400 for those on public assistance.
Here again, Singaporeans may question why the government is giving so little to our elderly folks while saying that ministers should be getting $1 million more than what they’re presently getting.
“Unreasonable financial sacrifices’?
The government’s argument for raising ministers’ salaries seem to be based on monetary compensation (or competition) in order to “retain the most talented” in public service. Other aspects of the issue, such as sense of idealism, duty, and even altruism among public servants, seem to be given short shrift.
Indeed, the prime minister himself has said:
“While public officers must serve from a sense of idealism and duty and not be motivated mainly by financial reward, they should not be expected to make ‘unreasonable financial sacrifices’ to be in public service, he added.” (ST, march 23, 2007)
It is hard for most people to see how being paid some of the highest salaries in the world can be “unreasonable financial sacrifices”.
There needs to be a re-focus
While some may decry such high salaries, few would argue against public servants being ‘adequately compensated’. What ‘adequately compensated’ means is subject to debate, of course. My view is that there will never be any satisfactory conclusion to the issue of what is ‘adequate’ – if we do not also promote and emphasise the other aspects of being a public servant.
Yes, there needs to be a re-focus on what being a public servant means. Singapore is not a corporation (and must never be) and there must be more to public service than monetary rewards.
The government has to look beyond monetary compensation to retain our ‘top talents’. It should not assume that idealism, duty and altruism is so remote or alien to our young people that it is no use emphasizing these values. Indeed, if the government finds that such values are lacking, the more they should promote it.
Has not the government been trying to create this sense of identity, of pride, of rootedness, and indeed a sense of duty among our people? Why then do they not do the same for the highest echelons of our society?
When have we seen or heard the government saying that being in public service is a noble profession where the best, brightest and most altruistic Singaporeans seek to contribute?
On the contrary, what we have been hearing is how much public servants must be paid in order to retain them or get them into public service. It seems to me that perhaps we have got the whole thing wrong.
Paying more = getting the best?
Public service cannot be predicated on the thinking that ‘if we pay more, we will be able to have good people’. This is because if we are able to pay more, there will always be others who can pay even more. Thus, we will be subject to this neverending cycle of trying to better our competitors in this area. Where does it stop?
And if our public servants can be seduced to leave by bigger monetary packages or compensations, are they the public servants we want to run our country in the first place?
Detachment between the elites and the masses
Continuously raising salaries to such astronomical amounts will further reinforce the widening income gap in our society, which will lead to feelings of disenchantment. It will also reinforce the perceived ‘disconnect’ between the elites and the masses.
Unless public service is seen to be a noble profession (which it is) and public servants seen to be men and women of integrity, duty, idealism and most of all, altruism, speaking constantly of monetary rewards will only lead to a class divide.
So, while we race ahead on the economic front, we must not forget what sustains us in the long run – that we do what we do for our country, our people, our families.
And if the people at the very top of government do not have such beliefs, then no amount of money will bring us forward to ‘first-tier, first world’.
It will only be an empty shell – which will crumble soon enough.
As soon as the money runs out.
“We should never use material rewards to attract new members. That will be attracting the wrong kind of members. But we can get them to understand that if they do not actively support and improve on the system, it must collapse through metal (sic) fatigue or corrosion. In other words, give them a mission and a sense of purpose. We can find a mechanism to give them access to the political leadership, and influence over national policies. Give them the satisfaction that they are playing a part in shaping the destiny of the country.”
- Goh Chok Tong, “PAP Youth Wing”, YoungPAP website
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
if indeed the sages were right about the root cause of evil that lies in its servitude to money, then, shouldn’t there be a need for a new breed of much abler people to reverse the order of motivation? and if the sages were right that the greatest force on earth is love, shouldn’t the love and the respect of your fellowmen be your greatest reward you can receive, above all else, for serving the greatest good?
and if all the above are true, then, it is imperative that the leadership should not hanker for more than what’s necessary( in fact, fortune should be reversed) for the good of all so as to suppress a wicked motivation and conversely, nurture the spirit of love for humanity to create, not a first world nation but rather a first class people with heart and soul.
i wager that where the heart of the nation is, we shall find a treasure of people(stayers) that shall be a shining example of new life and experiences that will pave the way for a braver new world!
And from his Father “Why do we need to pay more” 1996 speech to 2007, more than a decade, the concept of NOBLESSE OBLIGE has yet to filter down to these noveaux riche.
The duty to serve the nation that is so ingrained in the Aristocracy, in exchange of granting absolute political power to them, to allow them to fucntion as the “rudder” to the Ship fo State, for the betterment of their vassals and serfdom.
And for all their proud boast of the Success of Elitism, I need only to point to Grace Quek.
When you are gifted, with all the advantages in life, well-bred, well-reared, good pedigree and a prodigy; then what make you think that some of those Selected One ‘Grace Quek” will not turned into an “Annabel Chong” for all the millions you throw at them?
This issue about ministerial/administrative service salaries is very simple. Do we want to retain those individuals(not to mention pay them more) and allow them to come up with more policies that make our lives worse, and theirs better?
Who are the ones responsible for destroying the earth? Who are the ones who are ultimately responsible for destroying values? Who oppresses and who suppresses if not the ones who were given unimaginable financial power(BUYING POWER) to ENCOURAGE all of the above?
Once the people subscribe to First Adam free market system, they inevitably signed their rights and lives to fulfilling the greed and excesses of an ignoble class created.
But can the world balance the increasingly extremity between the rich and the poor? Do you seriously believe that there will be winners in such a large scale exploitative relationship?
If not, those who have led us there should yield their beasts on the altar, sacrificed(true sacrifices)for a sweet aroma to bring in the much needed rain!
We need to find a way to strike a healthy balance so that excesses can be brought down to FILL UP the recesses.Otherwise, the consuming culture will be liken to locusts ravaging the earth over and over again till it becomes barren and empty.
The evil in man comes in many forms.The simplest form is greed.
our ministers have no hearts. they serve themselves and their associates first before serving singaporeans. why should they get a pay rise?
By getting togeher a Committee of people who have links with the Government, the PAP is ensuring that the answer for Ministerial salaries will be biased towards them. In due course we will receive from the Committee an answer which is somewhat less but still topping the world average for similar Government officeholders, ostensibly debated in a predominantly PAP Parliament and stick the results down our throats and continue to enjoy millions upon millions per annum. This time around we the citizenry cannot voice our misgivings again because the PAP will claim that the matter having been decided by an ‘independent’ committee and thoroughly ‘debated’ is legal and payable without further harassment.
No country in this world links Parliamentarian’s pay to the top earners in the private sector, except the PAP in Singapore. If America were to link its senators’ pay to its top earners, they would have to be paid billions per annum. Same consideration applies to British Parliamentarians, Australian, German, French, Chinese, Japanese,Indian, Malaysian. Indonesian etc. This is because the top earners are in the billionare range.Like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Bernard Arnault, Lawrence Allison, Lakshmi Mittal, Amancio Ortega, Eike Batista, Mukesh Ambani, Christy Walton, Li Ka-Shing etc No country has its officeholders salaries even close to the top bankers, lawyers and other professionals in their country’s private sector. If the US for instance had done that, Obama’s remuneration would be in the billions too. This is because the largest enterprises are based in the US and their CEOs are typically paid in billions.
It is only in Singapore that this concept that the Parliamentarians pay should be some percentage of top earners in the private sector. The PAP led by Goh Chok Tong had the temerity to initiate this concept in 1994 because they found that Singaporeans are a cowardly and docile lot. A whiff of the ISD shakes their knees. The thought of libel and having to face compliant judges in Court sent everyone scattering to their own private concerns and shutting their mouths tight. So through our inaction and silence we allowed the Ministerial salary scheme to get out of hand and out of this world.It is time we bring some reality back into the aspirations of the PAP, as otherwise they will rob us in the broad daylight, by Committees and the much vaunted Rule of Law by which they swear.
The oppositon party which we voted into Parliament should speak out for us now or it will be too late. We do not want a compliant committee ( just like judges in Singapore) to decide the Ministerial salaries, We want the salaries to be decided by International Business Consultants appointed by each opposition party. Tell this to PMLee, NOW !!!
I first heard of the reason given by the PAP why the Ministers have to be paid their presnt enormous salaries back in 1994. The gist of it was that if you do not pay them that well they will be corrupted. Holy Cow! What a fragile moral backbone these noble office holders are deemed to have
Then a few weeks ago, the PM gave on TV another reason which is even more fantastic. The gist of it was that the Ministers must be paid their astronomical sums because they will not have the opportunity to attract lucrative fees for talks and book royalties once their tenure ends. I thought to myself as soon as I heard this reasoning by the PM himself. Should the citizenry compensate these Parliamentarians for their mediocrity on the world stage?
The PAP obviously pamper themselves covertly and overtly, so much so that the PM must have heard this reasoning very often from the horses’ mouths and he may have just blurted out this inane syllogism without conscious thought. How else can I explain to myself how a well educated Cambridge Mathematician can justify a reward for being unexceptional; such a massive reward of millions of dollars per annum at that.
I have to record these two pieces of PAP reasoning for the basis of the Ministerial salaries so that the Salaries Committee does not use the same again on us. It may provoke mass insanity for which Woodbridge has no room.
Fellow citizen, how can you believe that the PM is changing his attitude when the Committee he selects for review of the MInisterial salaries are of the same mold. This is again hoodwinking the citizenry.
Who are those ministers salary review committee members ?
Gerald Ee is PAP man.
John De Payva – NTUC President, what’s there to say. PAP man.
Fang Ai Lian – former Nominated Member of Parliament, PAP woman.
Stephen Lee – SIA Chairman, what’s there to say? PAP man.
Po’ad Shaik Abu Bakar Matter – Presidential Advisers, PAP man.
George Quek – Breadtalk CEO, gotten off with extremely light fine $4,000 for drink driving and crashing his Porsche into a stationary police car at a road block. Time to return favour? PAP man.
Lucien Wong – Allen & Gledhill Managing Partner and director of SPH. A&G acted for Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and Goh Chok Tong in suing the oppositions bankrupt. PAP man.
Dear fellow citizen, when this Committee has done its job, we will be well and truly stuck with the Ministerial salaries.