Andy Soon /

I refer to the article in ‘Lianhe Zaobao’ in regards to PAP MP Dr Lim Wee Kiak remarks about ministerial pay which should be able to reflect the dignity and status of a minister and his subsequent claims that his comments was taken out of context.

As Dr Lim attempts to explain himself on Facebook, it seems like a weak effort to defend himself for his comments which infuriate Singaporeans.

Perhaps he should not have commented on the salary issue while the council appointed by PM Lee is still in the midst of deliberating what a minister is worth.

Singaporeans do not ‘short-change’ ministers. However, at a time when the pension scheme and high annual salary of ministers comes under intense criticism from the public whose CPF scheme is under tight control and where they can’t even draw out any money until the age of 62, it is perhaps unwise to make comments such as his.

After all, President Obama is earning much less than Mr Warren Buffett or Mr Bill Gates. Yet, there were never any issues with his dignity being compromised. In fact, Mr Warren Buffet and Mr Bill Gates contribute much of their fortune to their own charities to help the less fortunate.

People respect President Obama because he is the president of the United States and they respect the fact that his job is the toughest job in the world as he has to maintain the power balance in the world, in his own Cabinet, lead the fight against terrorism, boost the ailing US economy, create more jobs for the homeless in the United States and so on – all while under the constant risk of being assassinated by political enemies from other countries.

As Dr Lim talks about ministerial pay being a fair reflection of their job scope, he should perhaps pause and think of the above. Does a minister of Singapore carry as heavy a burden as the President of the United States? Granted a minister’s job is never easy, but if Dr Lim is talking about respect, people respect ministers for their dedication and love for the people rather than the fat salaries that they are drawing.

In addition, democracy is such that if any CEOs disagree with any minister, they have the right to speak up. It does not mean that the one with the bigger payroll have the loudest voice.

Singaporeans were never disagreeable about paying ministers an adequate amount of remuneration. What they are concerned about is the quantum of salaries paid out. An example at home would be ex-housing minister Mr Mah Bow Tan who earned an annual salary of a few million. Yet, I would find it hard to find anyone who would actually agree with his housing policies or his constant insistence that HDB flats are affordable. The people who disagreed are just normal people for whom an annual salary of a few million remains but a lifelong dream.

Dr Lim may be worried that under the yet to be unveiled salary scheme, he might have to take a drastic pay-cut. However, he should know that normal Singaporeans are getting by on much less.

Opposition MPs such as Mr Chiam See Tong took a massive pay-cut when he closed down his law firm to concentrate on maintaining Potong Pasir. He did not complain at all. Singaporeans respect him for his dedication.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew did the same thing and left his family to the care of his wife. He was never ridiculed for not earning much to support the family and even today, he is still arguably the most respected Singapore politician in the world.

Let us assure Dr Lim that even if ministers took a massive pay-cut, they will still be respected if the people know that they are working for the people and he will definitely have enough to support his family.

—-

Headline picture from Yahoo News.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Education Ministry taskforce to find ways of leveling the playing field for students of different socio-economic backgrounds

Second Education Minister Indranee Rajah wants Singapore to find a way to…

评论:个人代步工具– 关于阶级和愚昧无知

Nicholas Tang: 我必须老实说,我讨厌个人代步工具。我认为他们对社会是有威胁的,落实针对电动滑板车的禁令是应该的。我们也有同样的不满:我们讨厌它们在行人道上快速移动,我们讨厌个人代步工具让我们在已经非常狭窄的行人道,让路人无法安全走路,但通常就是很反感电动滑板车大声播放令人难受的音乐(例如小苹果),我觉得应该要把这也列为“犯罪行为”。 尽管如此,我却认为政府不应该禁止个人代步工具。当然,禁令是最简单快速的解决方式,但却不是最佳方案。这不仅仅是交通安全法规的问题,个人代步工具更像是揭露了社会的裂痕,而我们需要对这些裂痕加以修复,避免社会基础崩裂。我将聚焦在三种不同的要素,他们互相交织与连结,不能仅单独讨论:阶级、政府政策与社会责任。 阶级问题 其中阶级可分为两种问题:首先,他们被视为实用实惠,大众均负担得起;再者,个人代步工具开启了送餐行业新景象,让过去无法负担昂贵高效交通工具的人,找到另一种工作机会。 第一点,在颁布禁令后,网友何益豪(Kelvin Ho)将自己对禁令的不满发布到网上,其中已可明显看见阶级主义的效应。在Reddit中,所有的评论大部分聚焦在嘲笑他作为送餐员与新加坡口音。 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czuM9-uxnJ4 嘲笑他人口音缺同理心 当然或许他的送餐经验相对缺乏,但他确实提出几点值得讨论。此外,新加坡确实有一部分人的口音如同何益豪,尽管不能理解他的论点,但也不能成为攻击他个人品行的原因,这显示社会不同阶层的人对彼此缺乏同理心的一种表现。 何益豪提出了观点:不是每个拥有个人代步工具的人,都能够负担摩托车,或是其他交通工具。…

The laws of man and God

~ By Howard Lee ~ The ongoing legal case on the five…

GE issues – job security, the Fair Consideration Framework and its limited promises

By Reperio Simon Jobs. This will be a hotly debated topic for…