David Marshall In 1994:

I’ve got nothing against money. I’d like to have money myself! I’d like to
have a house and a garden and dogs and a car and a chauffeur but, look,
I’ve got a flat. I’ve got a swimming pool attached to the flat. I’ve not
even got a car but I use taxis. I have a dignified way of life without
being wealthy.

I don’t see the necessity of owning a Mercedes-Benz and a swimming pool
and a couple of mistresses. I think we’ve got our values all wrong.

You know $96,000 a month for a Prime Minister and $60,000 a month for a
minister. What the hell do you do with all that money? You can’t eat it!
What do you do with it? Your children don’t need all that money.

My children have had the best of education. In fact, I’m very proud of
them. One of them is a senior registrar to two major hospitals in Oxford.
Another of them is a consultant in European law to the Securities and
Investment Board in the United Kingdom. They’ve had their education. There
are no complaints.

I never earned $60,000 a month or $90,000 a month. When I was Chief
Minister, I earned $8,000 a month.
Look, what is happening today is we are encouraged to and are becoming
worshippers of the Golden Calf.

We have lost sight of the joy and excitement of public service, helping
our fellow men. The joy and excitement of seeking and understanding of the
joy of the miracle of the living the duty and the grandeur. We have lost
taste for heroic action in the service of our people.

We have become good bourgeois seeking comfort, security. It’s like seeking
a crystal coffin and being fed by intravenous injections through pipes in
the crystal coffin; crystal coffins stuck with certificates of your
pragmatic abilities.

Then she got to this point, “For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite – raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.”

From all the jokes and stereotypes about politicians, I do not know if an “ideal political leader” as she describes exists.

I would like to believe that such idealistic people exists. But the reality is that most people with talent choose to exercise their talent for their own benefit.

There are few Mother Teresas or Dalai Lamas in this world and the fact that these are spiritual and religious leaders says something about their calling. For every Mother Teresa, there are tens if not hundreds of Saddam Husseins, Hitlers, Stalins, Pinochets, Idi Amins, and Ferdinand Marcos who are morally ambiguous if not downright evil, to the sadly incompetent like George Bush, Habibie and Abdurrahman Abdul Wahid.

The reality is that hell is paved with good intentions. The situation in Thailand is an example. The coup was meant to reverse the damage of a corrupt Premier, but well intentioned or not, the effect has been less than laudable.

Indonesia’s Suharto was also corrupt, but he nevertheless kept things stable. After he was overthrown, there was a series of ineffective presidents that did little to bring the country forward effectively. Well-intentioned though they may be.

Ms Lim’s description of the politician reminds me more of a social worker. And while I respect and admire the social worker, I am not sure that a social worker would necessarily make a good political leader. A friend of mine once commented in the aftermath of the overthrow of Suharto: so what if he’s corrupt. At least he’s competent. Instead there’s now a series of honest, incompetent presidents. And we’re not even sure if they are honest.

My point simply is this: the “ideal politician” does not exists. Or he does not exist in sufficient numbers to form the government. Ms Lim practically confers sainthood on the selfless, sacrificing politician. You may find one in every 2 or 3 generations. The rest of the time, you make do with people who would be CEOs.

In the absence of competent selfless people, the reality is that we have to make do with competent selfish people. And to ensure the competent selfish people are not tempted to corruption, we must pay them well.

Perhaps if we had, we would not have had the sad incident of Mr Teh Cheang Wan.

I hope that the upcoming salary review is not only for the Ministers and Senior Civil Service but across the board such as members of the Armed Forces, Home Team rank and file.

The percentage of resignations from the Police Force announced recently is not a good sign as these junior and senior officers sacrificed a lot more of their time, such as being on “standby”, giving up their public holidays, working irregular hours and are not compensated adequately either by overtime or time off in lieu.

Some even forked out their own tranportation cost to take them to their assigned unit in the middle of the night where transport means is only by taxis at 50% surcharge.

If the respective Ministries choose to turn a blind eye, it will show that the people at the top are only concerned with their own interests and highlighting their contributions but not that of the “rank and file” and more people are going to quit the armed forces and the police force once their contractual term ends especially the younger ones who has the potential to make it to the top of the ladder.

Singapore’s security is at stake here and it is not something that only a few good men can do anything about it.

People are genuinely concerned about the kind of leadership we have, their attitude to public service and their succession, because they will have a long term impact on Singapore (which does not exist for the sake of just the elites) especially the human aspects. As of now, Singapore is all about money as far as I can see.

This is a big issue, not a trivial one.

1) Detractors may know full well that current ministerial salaries deserve to be increased to match even modest benchmarks; however, they may be arguing against the whole process *for the sake of arguing*, knowing that the government will characteristically never ever concede its stance. This whole public debate/outcry process thus serves only as an intellectual exercise for the sake of drama, a sort of way to subtly remind the “less aware” people that even the most logical arguments will not be accepted or integrated into any compromises.

2) By the same token, the People who are able to voice their opinions in public via the press, may be doing it because they *resent* the ministers. Only the government thinks highly of its own ministers and their achievements. In the eyes of the man in the street, they are not doing as much or as well as they are expected to, and definitely, the current style of government is not well accepted. So instead of verbalising the vast area that is resentment, they just single out the more restricted scope of logical arguments against a hefty pay rise.