TODAY: Recapture the ideals, vision of 1965, urge MPs

DERRICK A PAULO
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

HE HAS spoken fiercely in favour of the market peg for civil service salaries. But when Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was quoted and referred to by Members of Parliament yesterday, they invoked the ideals he stood for rather than his hard-headed pragmatic approach.

As the final six MPs – out of 30 in all – spoke on the civil service salary revisions, the issue of how the ideals of a public service ethos square with a monetary emphasis came most sharply into focus.

Nominated MP Thio Li-ann argued passionately that Singapore, especially its post-1965 generation, needs a “unifying vision that transcends the joint pursuit of material wealth”. “Civic virtues like loyalty, sacrifice and perseverance sustain hope that a nation will endure and become great,” she said.

She cited how Mr Lee, on Aug 9, 1965, spelt out a vision of a country founded on the principles of “liberty, justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of a people in a more just and equal society”. So, in the “overwhelming, market-oriented” approach to public office salaries, she asked, are “intangible values for nation building” being discounted?

Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim also quoted Mr Lee on how “political leadership should have passion, commitment and share the same dreams as the people”, a comment to explain why foreign talent could not run Singapore.

While she agreed with him here, she questioned if the current salary benchmark for ministers is the way to achieve this. “If we’re seriously unable to interest good people in public office, we must ask why other countries can do it and we cannot. Is it just the money or the fact that we have not invested in creating a culture of high-public-spiritedness?” she asked.

It was not just non-ruling party MPs who spoke on the importance of ideals. Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah Group Representation Constituency), asked: “How many lives and livelihoods are at stake if our policymakers become too comfortable and disconnected from the realities of ordinary Singaporeans?

“This post-65 idealist would like to see leaders coming forward with a heart to serve, honestly and compassionately, who will put aside personal interests for the interests of Singapore.”

Straits Times: Sylvia Lim: Ministers will be out of touch with citizens

BY ZAKIR HUSSAIN

NON-CONSTITUENCY MP Sylvia Lim yesterday pointed out that ministers’ pay was likely to rise further in future, a rise she felt would put them out of touch with average citizens.

It would, she added, work against the national interest as leaders may face problems getting people to make sacrifices for the country.

A few years from now, she ventured, the benchmark “may require us to endorse each Cabinet minister’s pay for $3 million or $4 million annually.”

“As these pay packets are funded from taxes, including poor people paying goods and services tax, how far is the Government prepared to go with this? Does it have a threshold of unconscionability?”

The median monthly income of $2,170 was what a minister earned in just half a day, while a graduate’s median wage of $4,450 took a minister a day to earn, she noted.

As the salaries move up to 88 per cent of the benchmark by the end of next year, a minister would earn in two to three hours what the average worker made in one month, she said.

“Does the Cabinet not feel a tinge of discomfort drawing taxpayers’ money at such a rate?” she asked.

“At such rates, can ministers and Singaporeans share the same dreams?”

Ms Lim, chairman of the Workers’ Party, reiterated her party’s position that political office holders’ salaries should be benchmarked against what their counterparts in successful countries get.

It was a logical comparison, she argued, because similar skill sets and responsibilities funded by the public were being compared.

Public service had to remain an undertaking for which people are prepared to make sacrifices in exchange for the benevolent power to improve the lives of others, she added.

“If we corrupt this by money, we can be efficient but never a country of high ideals,” she said.

Nominated MP Thio Li-Ann expressed a similar concern with the emphasis on market-based pay, noting that leaders’ wealth could spawn discontent and alienation.

“One’s sense of duty must perhaps co-exist with other motives, but where does prudence end and avarice begin?” she asked.

“I appreciate the need to pay ministers well, but in devising an appropriate formula, there is a need to be vigilant, in the light of public unhappiness, to strike a median between austerity and excessive prosperity.”

Channel NewsAsia: National education has failed to create public-spiritedness: Sylvia Lim

By Hoe Yeen Nie

Sylvia Lim

SINGAPORE: Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim questioned the view that Singapore’s ministers would succeed in the private sector had they not opted for public service instead.

And if Singapore cannot interest good people to enter government, she asked if this was because government leaders had yet to create a culture of high public-spiritedness, despite years of National Education.

Ms Lim made these points during the debate on the civil service and ministerial pay revisions in Parliament on Wednesday.

The NCMP also stressed that in comparing ministerial pay with other countries, the issue was not the level of a country’s development, but the skill sets required of an office holder.

To add value to the lives of the people, Ms Lim felt ministers should understand the people’s aspirations and lead with both head and heart.

But with ministerial pay pegged at the current benchmarks, she said this has created a disjunct with the income of the average Singapore worker.

It also sends out the message that one’s sense of duty to Singapore could be similarly measured in material terms. – CNA/ls

TODAY: Parliament

New Paper: Govt Salary Debate

OVERPAID
HOW THEY DID IT

By Leong Ching
tnp@sph.com.sg

MINISTERS’ salaries are pegged to the 48 top earners in the private sector in six professions. These include lawyers, accountants, engineers and local manufacturers.

The method is to rank these top earners according to their pay, take the median pay and take off one-third.

This way, a minister’s salary is kept competitive against the private sector.

Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is also Minister-in-charge of the civil service, said that while “there is no perfect method for doing this benchmarking”, the current method had been debated thoroughly in 1994 and had the support of the House.

Yesterday, however, opposition Members of Parliament stood up to challenge this benchmarking.

Workers’ Party’s Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Government to consider modifying the current benchmarks to “a more equitable and sustainable one”.

“We suggest that the benchmark should take into account international practice, in particular countries such as Switzerland, Denmark and Finland,” he said, pointing out that these countries have ministers who are paid lower than Singapore.

He noted that these countries have a pay adjustment scheme, but “unlike Singapore, they all do not have a sure-win formula that ensures civil servants always have the best deal by benchmarking specifically to the top few earners”.

In the end, he argued, there must be a non-financial element to public service.

“There’s simply no point in offering high remuneration just to entice someone to serve if what he is interested in is to make more and more money for himself and his family in pursuit of material interests.

“Don’t forget that even if you don’t pay peanuts but pay with a bigger piece, say, a banana, you can still get a monkey,” he said.

Also arguing against the method of benchmarking was Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong.

He said: “I think this is unfair to the taxpayer who is footing the bill, because the high-performance managers, the CEOs are paid all kinds of extras, incentives, perks such as bonuses and stock options, and they also get bonus shares.

“In other words, their salaries are highly inflated. How can our ministers take that as a benchmark?”

A fairer way, he said, is to peg ministers’ salaries to those of ministers of other First World countries.

“I think Hong Kong is a good country to follow,” Mr Chiam said. “Hong Kong is an Asian country about the size of Singapore. It is paying its head of government about $600,000 a year, or about $50,000 a month. I think this is a fair salary,” he said.

People’s Action Party MP Inderjit Singh also took issue with the benchmarking approach, even though he supported the pay rise overall.

The Ang Mo Kio GRC MP said he agreed that the ministers and civil servants need to be paid what is due. But instead of a benchmark, he wanted the Prime Minister himself to decide ministers’ salaries.

MP for Marine Parade GRC Seah Kian Peng told The New Paper that he thought letting the PM have a say is an idea.

But he said benchmarking is the way to go. Once you have the principle in place, you just have to work out the details.

Mr Seah said: “It is a formula – who are in this group, how do you calculate it. If you want to argue about this, there will be no end to it. Everyone will think that they have a better way.

“If I can offer a suggestion, it is that after all the calculations are done, we still allow the Prime Minister the discretion to make the adjustments within a range, as he deems fit,” he said.