Dear Dr Lim Wee Kiak,

It must have been a difficult time for you now, especially with all the furor over your recent comment to the Chinese press. I think everything that needs to be said has been said, and I have nothing more to add.

I am writing to you regarding something else you said in the same article that disturbs me more. As it is in Chinese, I shall attempt a rough translation:

“Although he understood the public’s criticisms of the ministerial pay, he also felt that people must understand that ministers need to look after their own families

‘We may say that it is about service to the people, to the country, so let’s not talk about money issues, but this is a practical world we live in. A minister must also take care of his family, and his future.’

Dr Lim also pointed to the recent General Elections that showed that a minister’s position is not an ‘iron rice bowl’. Once he lost the elections, he cannot stay on in his job.”

Frankly, I do not know where this great paranoia, that the public really wants ministers (and MPs) to earn so little as to not to be able to take care his/her family and future, comes from. If you have been practising what the Prime Minister had been preaching, you know, about listening to the ground and stuff, you would know that the public merely wants less indecent wages for ministers. It would be a real loss of dignity to everyone if visiting dignitaries were to discover that our ministers live in HDB flats… without lift upgrading.

I mean, I do not remember any ministers or MPs who retired, or were voted out before 1994 – the year that the ministers’ pay was ‘adjusted’ – falling into poverty. (Ok, so a few were bankrupted, but those were the result of defamation suits.) Or is it that you do not trust us the members of the public to know what is fair remuneration for the daily sacrifice public servants like you make? Us, the very people you profess to serve?

I also do not understand where you got that idea that a minister’s job is supposed to be an ‘iron rice bowl’. A minister, like anyone else, deserves to lose his job if he is not doing well. Well, you can argue that George Yeo isn’t a lousy minister – and I would agree with you – and I guess the recent GE really does make it look as if a good performance is no guarantee of job security. Which make the whole situation a little bit like retrenchment. Yes, in the corporate world, there is such a thing as retrenchment, and it can happen to anyone regardless of performance. In fact, I believe as an MP you must have helped and consoled a few of your constituents who lost their jobs during the recession. But you never hear anyone in the corporate world asking for a higher pay because of the possibility that they may be retrenched in future, do you?

And honestly, if you believe it isn’t fair that a good minister like George Yeo lost his job, you may really want to look into the root of the problem – the GRC system. Seriously. It is enlightened self-interest. You’ll never know when is it your turn to be booted out through no fault of yours.

Which brings me to a comment you made in an episode of Talking Point in 2009. On the topic of risk factors in politics, you said: “When you’re an MP, you’re an MP for life. Even when you step down, your liability-hood continues with you.” I do not know how you can continue being an MP for life after you step down. Last I checked, the title of ‘Emeritus MP’ has yet to be invented. Might I also suggest that you check with retired Member of Parliament Dr Tan Cheng Bock if he feels this liability-hood everyday?

Having said that, I agree with you that this is a practical world. I understand your concerns about job security and worrying about the future and all. But the good thing is, the government already has a lot of measures in place to ensure that those who lost their jobs do not stay unemployed for long. It has schemes such as E2i and Workfare. These schemes work, trust me.

As long as you are willing to upgrade yourself, scrimp and save a bit,  push back your retirement age (who knows, you may really become an MP for life!), and switch to energy saving lightbulbs in your home (as recommended by your colleague Tin Pei Ling) you have nothing to fear.

Yours sincerely,

Joshua Chiang

26 May 2011

(PS: You really don’t have to take my suggestions seriously as I earn far less than you do. I am, of course, just joking.)

 

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

行动党说,要让人民,过着更美好的生活

行动党说,要让人民过着“更美好的生活”,它许下承诺说要达到“瑞士般的生活标准”。 甚至我们的誓词,也有说“建设公正平等的民主社会”。

Single mother shares her story of being turned down her application for rental flat as she tries to make ends meet for her family

Last Wednesday (12 February), a young single mother, Chanel Koh shared on…

陆交局下月起取消八座多用途车速限

陆路交通局基于现今八座多用途汽车安全标准已提升,从本周六(2月1日)起,将取消该款车辆施加车速限制,与其他小型汽车相同。 目前,八座多用途车速限是每小时70公里,而其他小型汽车则没有车辆时速限制。 陆路交通管理局于今日发文告,指出从下月起将取消这类多用途车的车辆时速,未来车主和八座车辆驾驶者,只需和其他小型汽车一样,遵守公路的时速限制。这项措施与其他国家一致。 此外,陆交局在本周六起,也会针对部分机动起重机(mobile crane)试行新时速。 目前,载重量2.4万公斤以下的机动起重机,速限制将调高到每小时40公里;2.4万公斤以上的,速限为每小时20公里。 陆交局指出,试行计划是基于业界反馈,每小时20公里的时速限制会导致路上行驶时间延长,使得驾驶员容易疲劳。 当局指出,该决定考量了车辆技术和设计的改进,使移动式起重机能够以更高的速度安全行驶,并且与其他国家(如澳大利亚,香港和英国)的做法一致。 在澳洲,机动起重机的限速为40-50公里/小时,英国为48公里/小时,在香港为70公里/小时。 陆路交通局强调,在试行阶段,所有机动起重机车辆仍需遵守车辆时速或公路时速,以两者之间较低的时速限制为准。 陆交局和交警也提醒,所有驾驶者和道路使用者必须在保障公路安全上扮演角色。超速驾驶的司机将受到处罚,其中可能包括罚款,扣分或被提控。 新加坡起重机协会主席Jimmy…

No news of investigation into allegations against Ivan Lim two months after GE

Two months ago before the current controversy surrounding Liew Mun Leong saga,…