~by: Tan Yin Hoe~
The Ministerial salary issue, says PM Lee, should not be just about the amount of money. That is precisely the point – For as citizens of this nation, how many of us would be concerned about exactly how much our politicians are taking home, if life were all well? Given our politically apathetic nature, how many of us would even bother to ask, if each and everyone of us were able to find his own rightful place in a fair and just society, earning a decent living and having a roof over his head?
If everyone of us felt that we have been respected and well taken care of by a benevolent government which puts the welfare of its citizens ahead of all other concerns, if we felt secure, happy, not having so much to worry about the future, how many of us would be so unreasonable as to suggest a pay cut for our truly talented politicians? It is not just yesterday that our leaders are getting so highly paid. If we were really that money-minded, our protests would have surfaced long ago.
That is not the case. We, the citizens of Singapore, are not concerned with the money. It is only the priviledged few, those ‘talented’ and ‘good’ people at the top, entrusted by a meek electorate to run the country, who are concerned. And we all know the reason why.
The Irony of ‘Sacrifice’
While we would all agree with the committee that the ethos of political service entials making sacrifices, the way their report talks about sacrifice eludes the common sense of every man-on-the-street. Chen Shu-chu（陳樹菊）, a seller of vegetables at Taitung County’s central market in the east of Taiwan, has donated nearly NT$10 million, which is nearly SGD$427,000, out of her modest living. This sum may seem like peanuts when compared to the gargantuan amount our politicians are receiving. But everyone would agree that she is noble for her selflessness and all the sacrifice she has made.
“Money serves its purpose only when it is used for those who need it,” said Chen. Her story spurred Lee Ang to write an article about her in Time Magazine, raising her to the ranks of ‘The 2010 Time 100’, in which the people who most affect our world are named. It also lead Forbes Asia to list her as one of the ‘48 heros of Philantrophy’. Here, is what can be rightly called a ‘sacrifice’ – Sacrifice that truly reflects upon the ethos of a person.
The ‘sacrifice’ made by our politicians, on the other hand, is proclaimed as a discount from a sum that has been arbituarily set to a benchmark that is outrageously high to begin with. While it is up to anyone’s discretion to dispute whether our office holders are truly worthy of their pay, the formula has taken the assumption as a given: All talent who is fit for the job must be capable of earning huge sums of money. Conversely, we would necessarily need to pay a huge sum of money in order to attract the ‘right talent’ to the job. The catch is this: Even before they take up office, these ‘good people’ are already concerned with whether they would be paid the ‘right amount’ to match their self-professed ‘talent’.
Any sum less than that may have caused them to seek for greener pastures. Assuming the original sum which the formula generates is indeed the ‘right amount’, the self-inflicted discount is claimed to be a ‘sacrifice’, that ‘reflects on the ethos of political service’. In other words, these ‘good people’ up there are already making a ‘sacrifice’ for Singaporeans without even lifting a finger. Singaporeans must really be ‘daft’ to believe in such a thing!
Perceive an employee who is already begrudging over his loss of time, space and freedom – not to mention the pitiful salary – even before starting up on his job. Which employer, in his right of mind, would hire such person? Yet, this is exactly the kind of mentality which, by the genius of the review committee and all the ‘talented’ people at the top, openly endorses and seeks to perserve!
It is not my concern to speculate whether our current office holders do indeed carry out their jobs with such mentality. We would be in a really sorry state if this were true. My concern is this: Why would we, as a nation, adopt a salary formula that condones or even encourages such mentality in people no less significant than our politicians? How could we, if that predicted by the formula were true, entrust these people with our country and our lives? What good does it do for our country? What good does it do for the people of Singapore?
This is no longer about the ‘ethos’ of political service. This is about being sincere and taking pride in one’s work; deriving satisfication just from doing the job itself and doing it well. Anyone who upholds such attitude and performance deserves to be respected – no matter how much the job can earn him, no matter how insignificant the job may be. Such are the universal values which ought to be promulgated in a salary formula. Such are the virtues we ought to look for when picking the right man to run the country. Not some self-proclaimed ‘talent’ which only God knows whether it is true or not.
In a nutshell, one has to enjoy the work – not (just) the money – in order to perform well. One who views his job as a burden that needs to be compensated can never do well, no matter how talented or well-suited he may be. A salary formula that overlooks these facts can only erode work ethos while serving the pockets of the political elite.
It is quite unbelievable that such simple facts would have evaded the minds of our leaders, talented as they profess to be. As Upton Sincliar would have put it, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
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
Devagi20 January 2012
@VOTExiaoBENG,
I support everyone, including you, if you can earn $100,000 a month. I believe if you can earn $100,000 a month, you have $100,000 a month problems in your head. Heavy is the head that has $100,000 price tag. The money is not going to drop from the sky into your pocket freely.
There is no law in Singapore to prevent you from becoming a Minister to earn that sort of money. You too can form a political party, stand for General Elections and get yourself elected to Parliament. With your party members form a Cabinet and earn the salary delivered to you and party members on the courtesy of PAP. Give it a try? Nothing to prevent you if you have the ability. Why do you want to envy and jealous of others who are more able and capable than you?
——
Unfortunately don’t work this way, are you the government devagi?
I am really disappointed at the performance of the WP. Why should they choose the same framework to argue their case, basing their calculations on a select group of people and then using a multiplier to arrive at the salaries of various grades of ministers. The Review Committee also did the same sort of thing. By having the calculations on the same lines with different variables the WP allowed their version to be booed down. I too boo it down as stupidity and lack of flexibility of the mind.
Before the elections, I remember the WP to have compared the ministerial wages in S to be orders of magnitude above what passes in other nations of the civilised world. The WP should work on exactly this angle. Surely they could estimate what are the non recorded payments of officeholders in the US and the UK and then base their calculations on this total remuneration. The amount of guessing required in this method would have been no greater than just applying a multiplier. For instance, what determines the multiplier as 3 , 5, 8, 12 etc.
Another method which the WP should employ is to look at the risk profile of occupations. Business valuers do this sort of calculation routinely.The method is also applicable to a profit centre like a minister. In the valuation of a business entity, appraisers use a discount rate which is the sum of two components or more. Let us say , only two components are employed. The first component is the riskless rate, which applies to all enterprises, that is to a minister or a CEO. The second component is the risk premium. Now the CEO has to face a great deal more risk than the officeholder. Our ministers are known to warm their seats for decades, making tons of mistakes and getting taps on the wrists for each. Worse they produce no new thoughts or ideas to boost the economy or bring on better living conditions. They follow their Master completely and totally, shaking and risking nothing. Not so the CEO. If profits are not forthcoming even within a year, his job is at risk and if profits fail to satisfy the shareholders, the CEO is removed. The CEO has to be churning ideas all the time. The estimated discount rate, which is the sum of the riskless rate and the risk premium of the minister is then used as a multiplier in the estimation of what is his marker value and then we can calculate the annual equivalent of his market value and arrive at the pay of that minister.
I am giving only two alternative ways as examples which are markedly different from the procedure used by the Review Committee. As a political party, the WP should have the firepower to do better.
All such appraisals contain estimates and guesses, even as the 40% discount used by the Review Committee is a wild guess. No one can fault a method as wrong if it is applied transparently and each guess is explain and considered properly.
I have a feeling that the WP is just a bunch of opportunists with no greater ability than the average of professionals, now trying to reach out for the pot of gold laid out by the PAP. The WP is not looking out for the taxpayer who is hard put to avoid the insult of a super salary wrenched out of them because there is no substantial opposition to champion their lot but a lot of government knuckle dusters lurking in every corner of the societal, criminal and legal landscape.
This is the worse thing of all, a veritable insult to Singapore. At the end of their calculations the WP to their discredit produce virtually the same figures as the Review Committee which as everyone knows is a cooked up job by the PAP.
I would continue to vote the PAP if all we can get is mediocre opportunists like the WP.
son of s,
so you prefer PAP’s cooked up job & vote them in again come GE2016?
no wonder PAP never change, some people also never change. hopeless…
Between the PAP and the WP, the PAP deserves to be paid the King’s ransom because they invented it and worked longest and hardest to get it.
I am now wary about what else the WP will betray us in. Will they agree to bring in another 2 million foreigners to become citizens or work in Singapore, so that their salaries being calibrated on GDP will rise as fast as the previous 5 years?
son of s
I am now wary about what else the WP will betray us in. Will they agree to bring in another 2 million foreigners to become citizens or work in Singapore,
………………..
and all this while the pap governors hav been doin what you are PREACHIN and yet you did NOTHIN….
The Papies ploy to make the WP look like dummies worked well. Firstly, Lanky Teo was thanking Paramjit for agreeint that the Ministerial Pay Committee was genuine in their efforts. Later he went on to thank every WP opposition MPs in the Parliment. Finally he ommitted that the WP maximum bonus awarded was only 5 months whereas the Papies agreed to the recommendations of Eel’s committee of a whopping 13.5 months. Lanky Teo knew very well that no one is going to speak or rebutt his concluding speech so he manipulated to make it look that the WP agrees with the Papies in all aspects of the Ministerial Pay except that WP was bottom up and the Papies were top down and shoved aside being branded as elitiest.
Now the Papies have given instructions to the msm to urge readers to celebrate the CNY and quickly eradicate the Ministerial Pay issues from the minds of the citizenery.
The main issue that we have to bear is that the issued bonuses and salaries for 2012 is going to be secretive and the bonus of a whopping 13.5 months. We were also sad that none asked why the Prime Minister needed 2.2 million dollars a year to maintain his dignity.
PAP is a very good spin doctor
Though I also support the disagreed of this minister’s pay, I also agreed that WP has never made use of this debate t present their proposal. When they were question about their formula usage of MX9, they seem to be not able to answer. I felt disappointed
Trisha hot unseen in Bikini
http://goo.gl/yyEXI
The question is why did they even bother to debate about this in the first place!
The more they debate the greater the criticisms and the more muddled it gets.
All in the name of transparency…
ArmchairPolitician,
pulling wool over eyes…?