Understand that Sylvia Lim's excellent speech has been posted in
a thread before, but since it has been re-directed here, I'm
re-posting it here so ppl can read it :
http://hammersphere.wordpress.com/2...ech/#comment-28
Parliamentary Speech
11 Apr 2007
Ministerial Pay
By Sylvia Lim, NCMP
In the last 2 days, MPs have covered many aspects of this
contentious issue of benchmarking Ministerial pay to the private
sector at 2/3M48. The Member for Hougang has comprehensively stated
the Workers Party position on this matter. The gist of our
position is that we should instead consider benchmarking based on
the remuneration of political office-holders in countries which
tick. They generally favour a more moderate use of taxpayers money
for political salaries, and do not seem to have run their countries
aground.
Today I would like instead to examine a few points raised by
Minister Teo Chee Hean in his reply speech yesterday and also to
argue why the benchmark of 2/3M48 for political office will
ultimately be against the national interest.
Points raised by Minister Teo on Apr 10
Minister Teo attempted to rebut the Member for Hougangs contention
that this debate was a waste of taxpayers money. He said instead
that this was a hallmark of PAPs commitment to transparency.
While I do agree that this is an opportunity to have a public
airing, the debate arouses a feeling of deja vu, harking back to
the other transparent debate about whether to have casinos in
Singapore. The revision was presented in Parliament in a form of
Ministerial statement under Standing Order 44 where no vote will be
taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the
government. I would personally very much like to know what each
individual Minister feels about taking more than $2m of taxpayers
money home each year, while fellow citizens struggle with rising
costs and taxes.
Secondly, Minister Teo mentioned that it was not right to look at
how much political leaders elsewhere earn because our Ministers
cannot become Ministers in other countries. But the comparison is
logical because we are comparing similar skill sets and
responsibilities funded by the public. Looking instead at 2/3M48,
how valid is it as a measure of a Ministers worth? Is it possible
that, in fact, some of our Ministers are doing better in Cabinet
than they would have done in their previous careers? Can we say
that each and every Minister in Cabinet now would have become a
top-earning banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer or CEO? We have
seen instances of civil servants and military personnel embark on
2nd careers in the private sector, and find the business world a
whole new ball game; and some, in fact, flounder.
Thirdly, Minister attempted to show that Cabinet salaries were not
in the rarefied zone of high fliers by plotting a graph of 1,000
residents and Malaysians. Even so, 1,000 out of the resident
workforce of about 1.9 m (as at mid 2006, according to Labour Force
Survey) is less than 0.1%. To be in this group of 1,000 is already
to be in a very privileged few and as far as the public is
concerned, is already in the rarefied zone.
Why 2/3M48 is ultimately against the national
interest
Economists have noted that globalisation increases income
disparity. As such, the top earners salaries will in all
likelihood move up further in the future. A few years from now,
2/3M48 may require us to endorse each Cabinet ministers pay for
$3m or $4m annually. As these pay packets are funded from taxes,
including poor people paying GST, how far is the government
prepared to go with this? Does it have a threshold of
unconscionability?
Next, what makes a good Minister? There may be differences of
opinion, but fundamentally, political leadership is a different
creature from administration. To add value to policy-making, the
Minister must play the role of politician he should understand
the public sentiment and aspirations, and be able to front policies
and explain things plainly to people. He must lead not just with
head but with heart. His ground feel of the needs of the people and
understanding of their plight distinguishes him from the
professional civil servant who usually focuses more on efficiency
and expediency in implementation. To be effective, a Ministers EQ
may often be more important than for him to be part of a Mensa
club. In fact, he would be better if he was wired differently from
the top civil servants, to reduce the mistakes perpetuated by
groupthink.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew previously justified why it was not
feasible to have foreign talent in the political leadership. He
said that the political leadership should have passion, the
commitment and share the same dreams as the people. (ST 4 Nov
2006). I agree. The question is: how will 2/3M48 affect empathy,
the ability of Ministers to share the same dreams as the
people?
Ministers are currently drawing $1.2m a year which divided by 12 is
about $100,000 per month. How does it compare with the average
person?
According to the Report on the Labour Force in Singapore 2006, the
median gross monthly income of workers in full-time employment is
$2,170. In other words, a worker takes a month to earn what a
Minister earns in half a day! For university graduates, the median
gross monthly income is $4,450. This would take the Minister one
day to earn.
As you move the salaries up to 88% of the benchmark, we will find
that the average workers monthly pay will be earned by a Minister
in 2-3 hours. Does the Cabinet not feel a tinge of discomfort
drawing taxpayers money at such rate? At such rates, can Ministers
and Singaporeans share the same dreams?
Another reality is that our leaders may face problems in
marshalling the people to make sacrifices for the country.
About 4 years ago, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan told the House that his
son had asked whether one should be prepared to die for Singapore.
This sparked off a heated public debate. The cynics invariably
linked this question to Ministerial salaries. To quote a member of
the public, and I paraphrase: Who are we trying to kid? Before we
start talking about dying for Singapore, let us look at our
leaders. We are told that we cannot get good leaders unless we pay
top dollar, so why expect more from the rest of us?
Citizens should be able to look to leaders for moral leadership and
inspiration. If what they perceive are mercenaries at the helm,
then asking them to make sacrifices will be met with cynicism and
indifference. This will not bode well for Singapores future. What
will happen when crunch time comes? Is this a time bomb planted for
the future of Singapore?
Salaries and Nation Building
If we are seriously unable to interest good people into public
office, we must ask why other countries can do it and we cannot. Is
it just money, or the fact that we have not invested in creating a
culture of high public-spiritedness?
In some countries, there are young people aspire to hold public
office. SM Goh had previously said that we could not expect to
behave like people in other countries because we are a young nation
and people still see things in material terms. How sad. After 41
years of nationhood, national service and national day parades,
what do we teach our children? Do we judge a persons worth by his
salary? If so, we have wasted millions of tax dollars on these
nation-building efforts, which have truly been in vain!
Public service must remain a noble undertaking for which people are
prepared to make sacrifices in exchange for the benevolent power to
improve the lives of others. If we corrupt this by money, we can be
efficient but never a country of high ideals. As such, I cannot
agree with the Members who see political office as yet another
career choice. It must be more than a job, and the holder must be
able to think of others besides himself.
In the popular American comic strip, the Wizard of Id, there was a
public address by the King to his subjects from the royal balcony.
The King began: Remember the Golden Rule! One of the subjects
called back: Whats that? Back came the royal reply: Whoever has
the gold makes the rules!
If the gold is the taxpayers money, then Singapore is not that far
from the Kingdom of Id!
And it does not matter what transparency the government has claimed
in this attempt to justify the pay hike.[/b]
