Disturbing News on Ministers' Pay

This was what somebody wrote in the Forum page of the Straits Times in 1996. Amazing that after a lapse of 15 years, the grouses and misgivings are still relevant...

=================================================================
It is indeed very disturbing that our success, material progress and prosperity have driven our present leaders to resort to using financial incentives to induce potential leaders to come forward to serve in public office.

“Unfortunately, in doing so, they have transformed the office of
political leadership from a noble calling into a highly paid
bureaucratic job. It will also erode the high respect which our people
have of our leaders as exemplified by our past and present crop of
ministers.
“To create the perception that our office-holders are there just for
the high pay is a gross injustice to the dedication and commitment of
our present crop of ministers, who had come forward to serve before
the pay revision.

“It will also cast a dark shadow over the motives of our future
leaders, even if they enter politics out of a sense of mission.”

On leadership, we also added, “Leaders who do not recognize their
special obligation and duty to society, which has invested so much in
them and helped them to attain a high status and position, and need to
be rewarded handsomely by very high salaries are no longer
extraordinary leaders……..We are not asking our ministers to make
sacrifice a la Mother Teresa, but we would be much better off without
leaders who are more interested in their pay cheques than in serving
the country……We need leaders who are not only visionary, upright and
capable, but who also have the wisdom and compassion coupled with an
acute sense of social responsibility.”

When the letter was published, a retired minister, one who entered
politics without regard for pay or personal safety, immediately called
me up and commended us on the letter, saying it was “an iron fist in a
velvet glove”.

In introducing a formula to calculate ministerial wages, the PAP
government thought it would remove the need to justify pay revisions
every few years. Indeed, it would be rather embarrassing, every time
the salary is reviewed and raised to tell Singaporeans that the rises
would only amount to about five plates of char kway per person.

The formula however did not remove the people’s resentment to the
humongous salaries that were paid to the office-holders. It did not
help that the salaries were pegged to the top-earners and winners
which means that the salaries would perpetually remain high
irrespective of the state of the economy.

Before the internet, the resentment was simmering beneath the surface.
When the internet came, it came to a boil. Every time a new minister
was introduced, we were told that he could easily get many times his
salary in the private sector. In other words, we were told that we
were really getting a bargain. Unfortunately, because the office has
become so commercialized, the people do not see it as a bargain or a
sacrifice on the part of the minister. Rather, the message we get is:
we should be grateful and stop whining. This merely increased the
level of anger.

It is just like a doctor telling his patient, “Look I am undercharging
you. I could see Mr. Z and he’ll be happy to pay me five times the
price. If you are not happy with me, just change doctor.” Totally
cold, business-like and lack of compassion.

Unfortunately this is how people have come to see their politicians.

The use of money to get leaders into government also reduces their
sensitivities in dealing with people, something that politicians need
most. If a politician doesn’t have that he can’t empathise with the
people. If he can’t empathise with the people, how can he serve them
well?

Imagine a union leader telling the workers that he feels rich every
time he looks at his Central Provident Fund statement! How would the
worker who doesn’t feel rich looking at his own CPF statement feel?
How would an impoverished taxpayer who is paying the salary feel over
such public display of elation? It is just like a rich kid who brings
an expensive toy to show his less-than-unfortunate classmates and not
sharing with them.

It looks like such mindset is not going to change soon.

Recently a Member of Parliament told the Lianhe Zaobao in Chinese,
“”If the annual salary of the Minister of Information, Communication
and Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discuss
policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars because they
need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals. Hence, a
reasonable payout will help to maintain a bit of dignity,”

If money is the only way to measure the dignity of an office-holder, a
politician or any other person, then this is very sad indeed. Mother
Teresa then would not be worth a cent.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock, a potential candidate for this coming General
Election, showed the way when he resigned from the Board of Jurong
General Hospital on moral principle. He believed that a national
institution should not be renamed just because someone had donated a
sum of money (a fraction of its building cost) to it. The name of a
building should not be for sale but given to a citizen who has made a
significant contribution to the country.

It is time we get our moral bearings right. This is even more
important when a young generation had grown up thinking only of
themselves.
It is, therefore, important our politicians lead the way.

I was amazed to read that Ms Tin Pei Ling had said that income gap is
not the responsibility of the government. It shows a lack of political
understanding and social concern.. I would advise Ms Tin to read Du
Fu’s poetry as they offer great sympathy to the common people and
reveal the sharp line between exploiters and exploited.

Ms Tin, if you don’t have the time to read the 1000 poems by the Sage
of Poetry, then at least read the 500-Character Poem A Reflection on
the Road from Capital to Feng Xian Town (自京赴奉先县咏 怀五百字). If you can’t
read the 500 characters, then at least remember these two famous lines
from it: 朱门酒肉臭， 路有冻死骨 。When translated it reads: “Wine and meat rot
behind vermilion gates, while on the roadside, people freeze to
death”, meaning “in the houses of the rich, there are so much
unconsumed meat and wine that they are left to rot while on the roads
are strewn with skeletons of the poor frozen to death”.

If a government is not concerned with the great disparity in income
gap, this is what will happen.

It is, therefore, good to see that the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien
Loong has now acknowledged that unhappiness over high ministerial pay
must be addressed if they are to renew the compact between government
and people.
It is good to hear Mr Lee saying ‘politics is not a job or a career
promotion. It is a calling to serve the larger good of Singapore’.

However, until the Ministerial Salary Review Committee comes out with
their recommendations, it is too early to say if there is genuine
reform.
It has been said that when you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. However,
it does not necessarily follow that if you pay a bomb, you will get
something better.