“There is one good point about paying our ministers obscene salaries. This will make them so expensive that foreign countries would not try and poach them.” An Anonymous Wag
~by: Dr Wong Wee Nam~
“When I undertake to do something, I do not expect anything in return. I am doing it for the sake of my country.” So he said on national television. This sounds very much like an inspiring political utterance made by a selfless politician but, unfortunately, it is not. The words actually came from the mouth of the late Mr. Choo Seng Quee, Singapore’s legendary football coach of the 60s and 70s.
Who is Choo Seng Quee? Those of us who are in our fifties and above would probably know something about him. It is unlikely that people below the age of 50 would have heard about him.
Uncle Choo, as he was affectionately known, was an extraordinary coach. He was intelligent (few from Raffles Institution in those days would want to be a football coach – pay being a key factor), a charismatic leader, a strict disciplinarian, a slave-driver, a good mentor to his charges and a great tactician. Most of all, he was a patriot who believed that when you wear the national colours you are fighting for the glory of your country. Which was why, at his training sessions, he made all his footballers to start the day at 5 am by singing the national anthem.
Many years ago, my friend Quah Kim Song, an outstanding footballer groomed by Uncle Choo since the age of ten, related to me an incident that I had not forgotten to this day.
Song said that at one training session when they had just started to sing the national anthem, the rain suddenly fell. Everyone started to run back to the dormitory for shelter. When they had shaken the water off their body, it was then that they realised Uncle Choo was not with them. On looking out onto the field, they saw the old man, standing motionless in front of the flag-post, with the incessant rain pelting down on him. All the players were so ashamed that they went back to the field.
If the recent debate on the report of the committee to review minister’ salaries is anything to go by, it would appear that people who are willing to do something for the sake of the country without being offered a substantial quantum of return hardly exist nowadays.
After seven months of deliberation, Mr. Gerard Ee, chairman of the above committee came up with this startling statement: “We have to do a kinesthetic check, touch our feelings and say, $1.1 million, too low, too high, how do we feel. I immediately think of some of my friends that (might be) potentially considered. Would they say outright, “Don’t kid me, $1.1 million, don’t come and kachau me.” But I hope we are right that $1.1 million is enough not to deter talented people.”
His views were supported by Grace Fu who wrote on the Facebook that it may not be “wise to call for the tradeoffs to be tilted further to an extent that it dissuades good people from coming forward in future”.
It would appear that in the committee’s deliberations, one of the important factors has been on how much to pay the ministers well so that people would not be deterred from taking on the job.
Have we come to this pathetic state? Is there such a paucity of people with a sense of mission in politics that we need to scrape the bottom of the barrel with the dollar sign to entice people to come forward? From the large number of people offering themselves to opposition parties in the last general election, where financial gain for them is less likely than financial liabilities, this cannot be so.
A good political leader should be one with a strong moral conviction to do what he believes in without regard for his life, liberty or monetary reward. If a person is deterred to serve his country and his people because the money is not right, how can such a person be a good political leader?
People who do not recognise their special obligation and duty to society, which has invested so much in them and helped them attain a high status and position and need to be enticed by humongous salaries to serve are really no extraordinary people and could be dispense with.
We should not gloss such people with labels like “talented people” and “good people” when the word “mercenary” would be a more appropriate term. It would really be a service to the country to deter such people from political office. We would be much better out off without leaders who are more interested in their pay cheques than in serving the country.
In May 2011, when the committee was formed, Mr. Gerrard Ee said “PM has said in his speech that salaries must reflect the values and ethos of public service. That means that whatever we work out, the final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector and people looking at it will say, ‘these people are serving and making a sacrifice’.”
Unfortunately, the report has not achieved that objective stated. When I look at the report, juxtaposed with Mr. Ee’s comments, I asked myself, “Why are we trying to accommodate the mercenary-minded people? By factoring them into the consideration, are we not devaluing the values and ethos of public service?”
Furthermore, because the recommended pay for ministers is still too high (it is merely reduced to the 2007 level), the report fail to make a lot of people looking at it to say, ‘these people are serving and making a sacrifice’. A hairdresser told me, “I read the newspapers and aiyoh, the ministers are paid so much. Aiyoh, really so much!”
It certainly would not convince this lady and many others as well that people earning that kind of money are making a great sacrifice. This despite the spicing of many of the news reports with words like “fair”, “reasonable”, “sacrifice”, “cuts”, “earn less” etc.
Another recommendation of the review committee that I fail to understand is the need for a National Bonus to supplement the ministers’ income. When a politician fights an election, it is a tacit understanding that if elected he will serve them to the best of his ability and with the dedication that is required of his office. Isn’t it a given that it is his job to grow the citizen’s median income of the citizens, including the bottom 20%, and cut the unemployment rate of citizens and grow the GDP? Why then is there the need to give added incentives to do all these things when these are exactly what he is elected to do and entrusted by the people to do it well? Running a country comes with the good years and the bad years. What do we do with the bad years? Dock his pay?
When we get a contractor to renovate our house, we don’t give him added incentives and performance bonuses to do his job properly. We engage him because we trust him to do his job properly. In fact, we will deduct the final bill if we are not satisfied with his job. If we are happy with his job, we will give him a future contract. Similarly, a politician’s reward is to be re-elected.
It is really sad that our mindset of how we should pay political leaders has not changed. We are always looking at using financial incentives to induce potential leaders to come forward to serve in public office when true leaders with a passion to serve would not need such incentives. By doing so, we have actually transformed the office of political leadership from a noble calling into a highly paid bureaucratic job. In time, it will inevitably erode the respect which our people have of our political leaders.
This, indeed, would be a gross injustice to the dedication and commitment of people who truly want to serve without regard for the returns but purely for the sake of the country.
It has been said that we may get monkeys when we pay peanuts, However when we appeal to a person’s love for money rather than his sense of mission, we may also end up attracting those greedy characters camouflaging themselves with sheep’s clothing’s.
Singapore needs leaders who are not only visionary, upright and capable. They should also have the wisdom and compassion coupled with an acute sense of social responsibility. Those who think that the money is not good enough or that the money is finally good enough for you to serve, please stay away and carry on with your own business. The country can do without you.
The review committee could have done better.
–
picture credit: style mesti ada
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
We are the only country fighting for our right to pay the Government office holders a fair wage, one which is according to our sense of proportion as the citizenry. This is the ministerial wage imposed on us by a one party parliament some 17 years ago.
This is the key to the situation in Singapore. No Government can function upon the basis that it has the right to pay itself whatever it wants. Doing this changes the relationship of Government as the servant of the people to Government as the ruler of the people. The ruler is not bound to provide good service to the ruled. Thus you have the mess here in Singapore. The mess includes shiploads of foreign workers, indiscriminate mass citizenship to foreigners, careless about citizens’ concerns, politicizing state institutions as PAP bodies, getting the judiciary and the secret police to prey on the people and so on.
Such large salaries even mess up everything. The officeholders now cannot communicate with the citizenry without the tone of insult.
So the salaries of the Ministers and other Government officeholders must come back to earthly proportions. Servants of the people stands in a relationship different from a ruler.The PAP cannot be a ruler by definition.
I think we misses the point altogether about attracting talent vis-a-vis ministerial pay. Loyalty is of the primary concern and talent comes in at a distant second. In the selection of the so call next generation of leaders etc. The first criteria is that you must be “qualified” to be suited in white. All else is secondary. Thereafter is selected then you will be richly rewarded. So all talk about attracting talent is just BS.
Re Ms Tin
LKY walks out when she speaks. What body language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3xsc3OsYHM&feature=share
The problem is that their elitiste mindset is very difficult to change. The 60pct need to wake up to help change their mindset or change totally. The option is yours! The system is lopsided and doesn’t goes along with the aspiration of the people. As a result the frustration becomes greater and the quality of life detoriates.
Grace Fu was directly responsible for confiscating 10,000 HDB flats from true blue Singaporeans. She got her hansome bonus and is yet to come back for the Parliment sitting. (Please Observe how many PAP Mps attended the Parliment 1st session of 2012).
The Eel’s committee (as slippery as it is) has made the Ministers Salary recommendations more complex. The more complex it is the better for the Papies legaised corruption to write their own checks.
@ EPHolder
Your argument is a flea trying to rape an elephant of truth. How many Singapore cases quoted or cited in Australian decisions compared to other Aussie, UK paricularly and Canadain cases – on a comparative basis?
Your quote below evidenced your distortion.
“I did simple search and I found dozen court cases that actually do reference Singapore law research, court deliberations & judgements.”
Daniel Chan writes to ST forum..
“Perhaps the most important attribute a minister must have is the ability to convince and persuade the public to accept government policies.”
WHAT UTTER BULL!!!
The only attribute needed is for a Minister to toe the party line and ensure Singaporeans swallow the rubbish…doled out by gahmen…and publicised by the lapdog ST.
Singaporeans have hobsons.. as in no choice.
Either Daniel Chan works for the ST or he is a grassroots leader!! Ho hum.
politician are PUBLIC SERVANTS.why peg salaries to CEOs of private sector?
why not bench mark to top civil servants like the chief justice,chief account,chief of SAF,police commissioner etc.
why the performance bonus?? t PM running a country or singapore INC?
if he does a good job.his reward is getting REelected??
To the Papies :
If you really listen to the Singaporeans implement this with no mumbo – jumbo of CLEAN WAGE; make-up pay; national bonus etc
PM salary = 650,000 dollars
Cabinet Minister = 500,000 dollars
Speaker of Parliment = 400,000 dollars
Member of Parliment = 250,000 dollars
NCMP = 150,000 dollars
I hope the PM can explain on monday for the speaker of parliament was paid $1.1million..?? for a part-time job.!!!!
Save data after the —- line into a notepad document, and import this CSV format into Excel for your plotting of Ministerial salaries – data from Straits Times 6 Jan 2012. Recommend line chart.
—-
Year,Prime Minister,Minister,Junior Minister,Comments
1965,”$42,000″,”$30,000″,,Singapore Independence
1970,”$42,000″,”$54,000″,,”PM increased ministers’ salaries, but froze his to set example for other Singaporeans.”
1972,”$45,500″,”$58,500″,,NWC recommended the 13th month bonus for all Civil Service and Political Appointees.
1973,”$123,500″,”$91,000″,,1st substantial pay increase
1981,”$214,500″,”$149,500″,,”PM: “”[Recruit] some … of the best in the professions … Otherwise, the Cabinet will simply not be equal to the more complex tasks of government.”"”
1989,”$669,708″,”$386,694″,,”Monthly salary raised again, and additional half-month bonus”
1994,”$1,296,000″,”$864,000″,,”PM: “”Pay peanuts, you’ll get monkeys!”"”
1995,”$1,600,000″,”$864,000″,”$800,000″,”Independent Panel: “”PM’s pay to be twice Junior Minister’s”"”
1999,”$1,440,000″,”$777,600″,”$720,000″,Asian Financial Crisis: CPF cut from 20% to 10%
2000,”$1,940,000″,”$1,454,000″,”$968,000″,”Extensive review, new GDP Bonus of up to 2 months. Then it was changed to up to 6 months! Performance Bonus changed from average of 4 months to average of 5 months!”
2006,”$2,460,000″,”$1,845,000″,”$1,230,000″,
2007,”$3,090,000″,”$2,340,000″,”$1,590,000″,GDP Bonus changed to up to 8 months! Performance Bonus changed to average of 7 months!
2010,”$3,072,200″,”$2,368,500″,”$1,583,900″,Performance Bonus changed to up to 14 months! GDP Bonus up to 8 months.
What DPM fails to address is whther political leaders have the unique legal right to put up some pegging to private sector in order to enjoy a heavy raise to world’s highest pays for our ministers. See what has happened to such pegging for the past 17 years in the case of performance of ministers in charge of home affairs and national development and people like SMRT CEO and many others in all the GLCs. The lists of performance pegging to private sector’s hire and fire practice and KPIs were not even produced by the committee to prove indeed that pegging assumption was correct and does serve the purpose of attracting talent as assumed.
So it is also not revealed by DPM Teo whether the 1000 top earners do include the CEOs of government-linked companies whose salaries have been pushed up by the government over the years to justify their ministerial pegging to raise their own incumbent pays like writing of their own pay cheques. This kind of pegging own salaries after appointment seems to have been done with a heavy dose of conflict of interest which is an offence under the current company laws. Is it even legal to do so ?