A minister in the Singapore government presently receives $1.2 million in salary. This is according to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as reported by the Straits Times on March 23, 2007 – “Top govt salaries far behind private sector’s”:

“A minister should be drawing $2.2 million a year or more, according to benchmarks approved by Parliament in 1994 to ensure competitive salaries for a competent and honest government.”

Although increasing ministers salaries may give rise to what the Straits Times calls “knee jerk reactionary views” from the public, and “visceral reaction in many quarters” (ST, march 24 2007, Insight), one should seek to understand why this is so.

And I would offer that there are good reasons for these sentiments.

GST increase

The government had recently announced an increase in the Goods & Services Tax (GST) rate. The reason given was that the government needed the money to fund certain programmes like Workfare and infrastructure costs pertaining to an ageing population.

Thus, the government was effectively saying that they will not have enough money if they do not raise the GST.

Announcing a rise in ministers’ salaries so soon after the announcement of a GST hike has raise disquiet among some quarters. Indeed, some people have asked if the GST hike is to fund the increase in ministers’ pay. And why, if we do not have enough money for Workfare and other programmes, are we able to raise ministers’ salaries?

Public Assistance Schemes

The Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports recently raised the amount of public assistance from $260 to $290 per month, for persons living alone without any dependents. A mere $30 increase, or an extra $1 per day for those on the scheme.

Even PAP MP Dr Lily Neo found this inadequate and has continued to ask for more for such people. The government, however, has been silent on her request. We are therefore unsure if the government will be raising the amount further. Dr Neo has asked for $400 for those on public assistance.

Here again, Singaporeans may question why the government is giving so little to our elderly folks while saying that ministers should be getting $1 million more than what they’re presently getting.

“Unreasonable financial sacrifices’?

The government’s argument for raising ministers’ salaries seem to be based on monetary compensation (or competition) in order to “retain the most talented” in public service. Other aspects of the issue, such as sense of idealism, duty, and even altruism among public servants, seem to be given short shrift.

Indeed, the prime minister himself has said:

“While public officers must serve from a sense of idealism and duty and not be motivated mainly by financial reward, they should not be expected to make ‘unreasonable financial sacrifices’ to be in public service, he added.” (ST, march 23, 2007)

It is hard for most people to see how being paid some of the highest salaries in the world can be “unreasonable financial sacrifices”.

There needs to be a re-focus

While some may decry such high salaries, few would argue against public servants being ‘adequately compensated’. What ‘adequately compensated’ means is subject to debate, of course. My view is that there will never be any satisfactory conclusion to the issue of what is ‘adequate’ – if we do not also promote and emphasise the other aspects of being a public servant.

Yes, there needs to be a re-focus on what being a public servant means. Singapore is not a corporation (and must never be) and there must be more to public service than monetary rewards.

The government has to look beyond monetary compensation to retain our ‘top talents’. It should not assume that idealism, duty and altruism is so remote or alien to our young people that it is no use emphasizing these values. Indeed, if the government finds that such values are lacking, the more they should promote it.

Has not the government been trying to create this sense of identity, of pride, of rootedness, and indeed a sense of duty among our people? Why then do they not do the same for the highest echelons of our society?

When have we seen or heard the government saying that being in public service is a noble profession where the best, brightest and most altruistic Singaporeans seek to contribute?

On the contrary, what we have been hearing is how much public servants must be paid in order to retain them or get them into public service. It seems to me that perhaps we have got the whole thing wrong.

Paying more = getting the best?

Public service cannot be predicated on the thinking that ‘if we pay more, we will be able to have good people’. This is because if we are able to pay more, there will always be others who can pay even more. Thus, we will be subject to this neverending cycle of trying to better our competitors in this area. Where does it stop?

And if our public servants can be seduced to leave by bigger monetary packages or compensations, are they the public servants we want to run our country in the first place?

Detachment between the elites and the masses

Continuously raising salaries to such astronomical amounts will further reinforce the widening income gap in our society, which will lead to feelings of disenchantment. It will also reinforce the perceived ‘disconnect’ between the elites and the masses.

Unless public service is seen to be a noble profession (which it is) and public servants seen to be men and women of integrity, duty, idealism and most of all, altruism, speaking constantly of monetary rewards will only lead to a class divide.

So, while we race ahead on the economic front, we must not forget what sustains us in the long run – that we do what we do for our country, our people, our families.

And if the people at the very top of government do not have such beliefs, then no amount of money will bring us forward to ‘first-tier, first world’.

It will only be an empty shell – which will crumble soon enough.

As soon as the money runs out.

“We should never use material rewards to attract new members. That will be attracting the wrong kind of members. But we can get them to understand that if they do not actively support and improve on the system, it must collapse through metal (sic) fatigue or corrosion. In other words, give them a mission and a sense of purpose. We can find a mechanism to give them access to the political leadership, and influence over national policies. Give them the satisfaction that they are playing a part in shaping the destiny of the country.”

– Goh Chok Tong, “PAP Youth Wing”, YoungPAP website

 

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

避免设施没人用造成浪费 徐顺全促穆仁理:建设应多咨询居民

此前,民主党秘书长徐顺全反映,武吉巴督第190座组屋缺乏人行道;惟该区议员穆仁理曾回应,呼吁居民善用现有的无障碍通道。 徐顺全本月17日更新贴文,指出应居民王先生之邀,再到现场视察,了解建设人行道的问题。他声称,居民也邀请了穆仁理,尽管后者未克出席,不过此前已告知民众,成本乃是建设走道的因素之一,而有盖走道的建造和保养显得过于昂贵。 对此徐顺全强调,民众要求的只是一个人行道,避免在土地或草地上行走,没要求有盖人行道。 徐顺全也形容,目前区内的建设都未咨询过居民,只根据城镇规划而建设,简直就是一大资源浪费。 他也举例:“道路旁就建造一个美观的迷你公园。其中就有一个几乎没有人使用过的河流景点(A照片)和一个‘露天剧场’,一排排的座位前是一片杂草丛生、无人打理的草丛(B照片)。这些昂贵的建设显然没有效用。” 穆仁理促使用已存在走道 穆仁理提到居民可以使用已既有的走道,但居民此前都已反映,不是不愿使用这些走道,实在是碍于过去发生高空抛物的事件,居民都担忧”天降横祸“。 而是用组屋底层,居民就必须穿越建筑物和不平坦地面的锯齿形路线,这对老人家、小孩、使用婴儿车的父母或携带杂货的人们来说,非常困难。而在居民使用底层举办红白事活动时,情况更糟。徐顺全也展示了锯齿形路线的鸟瞰图,是他从另一位居民,陈先生发送的C照片。 徐顺全博士指出,他曾询问当地许多居民,获悉他们都不使用组屋底层的路线,因为他们觉得那条路线更耗时间更不方便。 帖文中,他也以大巴窑中心的组屋为例,指该处在组屋人行道几米外的地方,增建笔直的有盖人行道,为何在武吉巴督就不能了。 另一方面,有居民指出,道路的一部分已向一侧倾斜了,出现泥土流失现象,几乎没有空间给人行道了。 对于以上种种,徐顺全呼吁穆仁理不要再给理由,并希望当局以居民安全为重。

Whether the online support translate into vote, we will see after election days, says SPP’s Jose Raymond

The chairman of Singapore People’s Party (SPP) Jose Raymond took to his…

“895 HDB flats repossessed since 2003”

By Leong Sze Hian I refer to the article “895 HDB flats…

卧病在床也不通融? 马国癌患者躺担架到公积金局取钱

当卧病在床无法动弹,公积金局却仍要你亲身前往取钱,你会怎么做?邻国马来西亚就发生了相似的案例,一名身患癌症的患者,由于卧病在床,为了能够获取公积金局的钱,被迫躺在担架上到新山分局去办理提款手续。 综合媒体报道,由于需要指纹认证身份,该名56岁患者不得不在12月17日时,由救护车载送前往公积金柔佛分行、躺在担架上办理提取手续。 患者妹妹诺西拉表示,姐姐由于患上癌症一直卧病在床,但她想要提取公积金里的钱,所以她便到公积金局分行去询问是否能够派遣官员到家中进行指纹认证。 “我们向公积金局表达了我们的状况,并询问他们是否可以到家采集指纹,但得来的答案却是不可以。” 她续指,官员向他们解释,因为需要特殊机器采集指纹,所以必须亲身到公积金局内进行指纹认证。官员称不管用任何方式,无论是坐上救护车或是担架,都可以来到局内进行。 到了现场才告知可手动取指纹认证 “当我们乘着救护车来到公积金局门口时,整个情况变得更糟糕。由于救护车挡着大楼的入口,迫使司机必须绕道而行,最后一名官员来,指示将姐姐抬上柜台前。” 在完成了一切手续后,公积金局官员竟然告诉他们,其实以手动方式能完成指纹认证,只是需要一段时间,意指姐姐其实可以不用亲身到公积金局进行指纹采集。 “为什么他们没有早些通知我们,虽然要花一段时间才能完成手续,但至少我的姐姐不必受苦到那里去”,她控诉。 她也批评管理层是否有意识到员工的安全,若今天患者身患传染病,这样随意出门时非常具有危险性。 马国网民一面倒骂翻 最后诺西拉将悲惨经历上传到脸书上,也敦促公积金局应重新检讨作业标准。帖文一出,立即引起网民的关注。网友纷纷表示,公积金局做法不符合人性,应该体恤患者的情况,到家服务;但也有部分网友则认为不应一杆子打翻所有人,不是每间公积金分行都会如此行事。…