Ng E-Jay and Leong Sze Hian / Current Affairs Desk

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s uncharacteristic comments about flying economy class as a way of leading by example cannot be taken seriously. The only way for him and his senior ministers to gain greater respect would be to lower their own salaries to more acceptable standards.

A SOUTH Korean official got it all wrong when he called Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s decision to fly economy class “praiseworthy” and “pragmatic”.

(Photo: Some Singaporeans are unhappy at Mr Lee’s extravagent salary. Courtesy of Faith Toh / Creative Commons)

The Chosun Ilbo, a leading South Korean newspaper, reported that when Finance Minister Yoon Jeung Hyun asked Mr Lee “why the leader of an affluent country (doesn’t) use a private or charter jet”, Mr Lee responded by saying that he did not think Singapore was an affluent
country.

Mr Lee also reportedly said: “Besides, as a government official, I have to lead by example. Singapore’s senior officials fly economy class, not first class, for flights under six hours.”

The entire exchange, as well as the Chosun Ilbo’s coverage of it, was reported in the Straits Times. Both leaders spoke after attending the Asean-South Korea Commemorative Summit in South Korea.

When politicians start making statements that display a false sense of humility, one cannot help but question the premise of those statements as well as the issues that those statements obscure.

Mr Lee’s assertions of “leading by example” seem rather hypocritical, given the pay he receives as a minister.

Had Mr Lee’s statements come from a politician of any other developed country, they would probably not cause any stir. But Mr Lee is the highest paid politician in the world by a wide margin, and one cannot help but wonder at the purpose of this false sense of humility.

It may well be true that South Korea’s per capita GDP is only half that of Singapore, as Mr Yoon had stated when he questioned PM Lee on the latter’s choice of transport.

However, Singapore cabinet ministers on the average earn 20 to 50 times more per dollar of GDP compared to politicians of other developed countries like US, Britain, etc.

It is equally facetious for Mr Lee to claim that he thought Singapore was not an affluent country, in light of the fact that the ruling party frequently touts the competence of their cabinet ministers and public servants and high rate of economic growth as the justification for the ministers’ million-dollar salaries.

If Singapore cannot be considered an affluent country, why are we affording our ministers such affluent lifestyles funded out of the taxpayer’s pocket?

If you are one of the almost 300,000 Singaporeans and permanent residents who still earn $1,200 or less a month, or one of 126,000 or so working part-time for a median monthly income of $600 that has remain unchanged for the last nine years, how would you feel after reading the news about Mr Lee’s remarks?

If you are one of the 95,600 who are unemployed with no prospects of a job on the horizon, or one of 60,000 who are having problems paying your mortgage for your HDB loan flat, would you not be upset at the outrageous salaries that the ruling party declare for themselves?

It is sad that Mr Yoon has mistaken Singapore’s ruling party’s self-serving attitude and Mr Lee’s misguided sense of humility as “pragmatism”. The false modesty displayed by him should never be mistaken for humility.

Indeed, Mr Lee’s assertion that all ministers fly economy for flights under six hours is questionable. It is known that permanent secretaries used to fly first class for all flights, and that was subsequently changed to business class for short flights and first class for long flights.

It will also be interesting to ask when this policy to fly economy was implemented, and whether senior official fly business or first class for flights over six hours.

If our ministers really want to lead by example, perhaps they could consider reducing their salaries some more, as a $1.5 million annual salary is still unjustifiably high.

Only then can they earn a greater measure of respect among the poor and disenchanted.

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

《网络公民》总编回函总理新闻秘书

本周日,李总理新闻秘书张俪霖,代表总理向本社总编许渊臣发函,指本社英语站在8月15日刊登的一篇评论,复述针对总理的不实指控,要求本社撤下并在三日内道歉。 对此,许渊臣在今日致函总理答复。在信中,许渊臣强调,自己始终都是问责、透明和法治的忠实信徒,并认为本地运营最久的老牌网络时政网站《网络公民》,身为总编,自己有必要说实话。 他认为有关评论文章不含诽谤性,而是根据可能对事件知情的总理家人此前发表的公开声明,也有鉴于涉及公共利益问题,为了能避免造成疑虑,只能重新复述总理弟妹曾说过的话。 张俪霖在信函中也指出,上述评论对李显龙作出的虚假指控,包括已故李光耀在2013年,得知欧思礼路38号故居未被列为古迹后,不再把李总理列为遗嘱执行人和受托人中。这些指控是李显龙妹妹李玮玲提及的。 张俪霖澄清,实则李光耀自2011年以后,都不再把总理列为执行人和受托人。李光耀曾向李总理解释,如政府有意收回故居,而弟妹对赔偿有意见,他不想让总理为难。 对此,许渊臣称,他也意识到有关内容让人对总理被移除遗嘱执行人的时间点上,可能产生误解,惟这并非他的本意,他针对此事致歉。 不过,许渊臣强调文章的用意,不是要让人引起对于这些指控在技术层面的误会,而是希望能反映更大的问题,即有关滥用权力的指控,以及已故李光耀和总理的关系情况。 “我诚挚地相信,新加坡人更关注这方面的议题,而不是您所提起的技术问题,因为也涉及已故李光耀先生的价值观。” 许渊臣表示,尽管他自己也担忧法律诉讼带来的代价很大,但愿意坦然面对,不仅是为了坚持自己的原则,也是维护自己对国家和新加坡同胞们的义务。 “我热爱这个国家和同胞们。我的道德义务,是协助消除掉在新加坡让言论噤声的恐惧氛围,希望能为新加坡的未来,建立一个更开放、充满活力和稳健的社会。” 故此,对于总理新闻秘书信函第八段提出的要求,即立即移除有关文章,并在本月4日(今天)前无条件作出道歉,以及承诺不在《网络公民》刊登类似的指控,许渊臣则婉拒了这些要求。 4…

政府修法遏止网络公审 惟起底偷拍司机前科“符公共利益”

政府将修订防止骚扰法令,未来恶意”起底“他人隐私(doxxing)、或鼓动攻击对方,都能构成犯罪。透过网络、社交媒体,贴大字报或派传单等公开他人隐私、骚扰他人,可判长达六个月监禁,或最高罚款五千元,或两者兼施。 至于鼓动暴力则可面对最高罚款五千元、或一年监禁,或两者兼施。 政府基于近年民间常发生网民资料被“起底”,遭不满者个人私隐在网络和社交媒体被肉搜,诸如姓名、地址、电话工作地点等都被公开,对当事者或其家人造成困扰,其中也不乏被”错起底“的例子。 防止骚扰法令于2014年11月中生效,根据现有法令,受害者如发现有人散播其个人资料的假信息,可向法庭申请撤下相关信息。 修订案将在三方面加强保护受害者,包括制订新罪行、澄清受假信息骚扰的企业,也可诉诸法律,以及扩大针对假信息而发的庭令。 法庭可发出五种庭令,保护受网络假信息影响的受害者: 停止刊登令(stop publication orders) :停止刊登假信息或大量相似的假信息。 更正令(correction orders):刊登者须发出更正通告。…

跨岛线第一阶段 陆交局颁3.56亿元钻掘隧道工程合约

据陆路交通管理局(LTA)文告,当局拟建设3.2公里的隧道,衔接航空园站(Aviation Park Station)和罗央站,这是跨岛线第一阶段的(CRL1)的一部分, 预计工程将在今年第二季动工。 有关钻掘隧道土木工程合约,将总值3亿5600万元,颁给一家联营公司,由大成建设(Taisei Corporation),以及中国建筑工程(China State Construction Engineering Corporation)新加坡分公司组成。 当局称,此次工程将将首次采用大直径隧道钻凿机,以兴建有两条轨道的隧道。 跨岛线第一阶段全长29公里,预计在2030年通车,计划设立12个地铁站:实龙岗北、光明山站、德义、宏茂桥、达维士笃(Tavistock)、后港、德福、巴西立、巴西立东、淡滨尼北、罗央,以及航空园站。…

疑GPS故障走错地点 女私召车司机大雨中轰乘客下车

手机程序中的导航系统出现纰漏,乘客也告知送错地点了,但是女私召车司机却不顾外面下着倾盆大雨,强迫乘客下车。 署名本杰明的网民指出,上述事件发生于周二(10月22日)上午。 他于当天上午要从位于杨厝港路嘉城林的住家,前往工作地点,即位于巴耶利峇路155号的Lotus 诊所。 “当时约早上7时30分,我已经迟到了……天空下着大雨,所以我就在家预约了私召车Gojek服务。” 曾多次反映皆被无视 他对网络新闻网站《Stomp》指出,在路上,他发现有关女私召车司机没有照正确路线行驶,虽然尝试告诉女司机,但是她仍坚持跟着导航走。 本杰明表示他多次反映,但女司机最终竟要求他在比莱1号路下车,而该处距离其目的地仍有1.3公里。 “虽然我不断尝试说服她,说她到达了错误地点,但是她却威胁我说,若我不下车,她就报警。” 本杰明指出,他当时无奈地在大雨中下车,随后还要另外花费八元,预订Grab私召车服务,从比莱路前往诊所。 他表示,当他回顾此事,意识到或许是Gojek应用程序中的GPS出现了故障所致。“这是可以理解的,类似事件时有发生。” 惟,令他震惊和难以接受的是,许多私召车司机都缺乏基本常识,而且工作时过于依赖GPS。…