~by: Adrian Ng~

I read with interest the PM’s speech in parliament with regard to the recent ministerial pay issue. There were some things he mentioned that jumped out at me and stirred an uneasiness within.

“If you have the wrong system of pay, you will have the wrong team,”

This phrase, in my opinion, has got the fundamentals all wrong. Most leaders will tell you that the most important thing to get right in any team is the value system in the team. Only if you can find people with the same values can you drive the team effectively forward in the same direction. If you get the values right, you will get the right team. If you get the values wrong… well, everyone knows the answer to that one. What the PM seems to imply is that pay is of the utmost importance in finding the right people for the job, that at the end of the day, everything boils down to dollars and cents. That, from his perspective, might be true, considering the way the government has measured and defined success in this country.

This might be why we are in this situation today, where every mistake made by a minister or a ministry is greeted by a chorus of disapproval and calls for greater accountability. How else can the people react when they have been conditioned that everything boils down to results and dollars and cents? What the government has effectively done is to equate monetary rewards with talent and if that is so, then it is no far stretch of the imagination for the people to extrapolate that this also means that there can be no room for error in judgement on the part of the minister (not when you are supposedly the best talent that a 7 figure salary can buy). Whether this viewpoint is reasonable is debatable, but this viewpoint has certainly been ingrained in the people by the way the government has positioned their ministerial pay ever since Goh Chok Tong first brought it up.

PAP is literally a victim of their own success in moulding a people from whom perfection is demanded of and as a consequence put them in an unenviable position where any mistake on their part can no longer be tolerated. The PAP has a hard time justifying and explaining their increasingly precarious position because as Stephen Covey very eloquently puts it, "You cannot talk your way out of a situation that you behaved yourself into." They have behaved themselves into a position where nothing but perfection is expected of them and frankly, the slip ups and foot-in-the-mouth situations by its members are getting too embarrassingly frequent. They might already "have the wrong team".

“It is not a bidding war where if you get the cheapest [minister], you will get the best value for money,”

The opposite of this statement is also patently true. Having the most expensive minister does not indicate that he is the best person for the job. Logically, if a person joined politics because the good pay was an important consideration, it is logical to assume that pay would likely be a substantial driving force of his subsequent actions. At the end of the day, there is a danger that decisions that need to be made might potentially be clouded by this nagging thought of whether this decision he is about to make would result in an increase in his pay. The public service is certainly not the place where such thoughts should be allowed to surface. Having someone come into public service because he is attracted by the high pay certainly provides a fertile ground on which such thoughts can easily germinate.

However the PM stressed that the government’s approach has worked well for Singapore as the People’s Action Party has governed effectively, cleanly and fairly, and have improved the lives of Singaporeans.

Just a couple of questions to put PM's statement into perspective:

  1. Was the $300 million over budget of the YOG effective governance?
  2. Was the inability of the previous National Development minister to understand the gravity of the public housing situation, effective governance?
  3. Was the inability of the country's infrastructure to keep up with population growth (due to immigration policies), effective governance? (This must certainly be the most glaring example of how the PAP has NOT governed as effectively as they would like to believe)
  4. Was the changing of electoral boundaries fair? (It might be allowed for in our constitution, but that does not therefore imply that it is fair)
  5. Was the implementation of GRCs (a uniquely Singapore phenomenon) fair?
  6. Was making veiled threats to the people staying in opposition wards that they might be denied the right to use public funds for upgrading fair?
  7. Has the government improved the lives of low wage earners? (According to MOM statistics, this group has seen their real income stagnate in the past 10 years.)

On the issue of accountability, the PM stressed that Singaporeans cannot expect ministers to never make mistakes, but when they do, they must acknowledge their mistakes and fix things.

In this case, might I ask what happened in the previous points mentioned above.  Did Vivian Balakrishnan or Mah Bow Tan make amends or at the very least acknowledge their mistakes? How can one vigorously defended his position, even going so far as to say that given another chance, that he would do it all over again; while the other was blissfully unaware of the real situation on the ground? These two prime examples that illustrate that maybe the words "accountability" and "mistakes" are not understood the same way by the PAP compared to the rest of us.

The government has stressed that we cannot compare the remuneration of our political office holders with those in other countries because these leaders receive other perks like private jets, holiday residences, lucrative writing and lecturing tour career after their term in office. This is an argument that is wearing thin and certainly reeks of double standards. How can our leaders set their salary benchmark to the top 1000 earners and then in the same breath tell the people that we cannot compare their pay to those other countries? If this comparison is not relevant, then the benchmarking to the top 1000 earners is even more tenuous for a number of reasons.

The top 1000 earners in the private sector can be removed from their positions if they do not perform to expectations. Compare this situation with the number of times in the short history of Singapore the government took the initiative to remove, or at the very least publicly censure a political office holder for performing below expectations?

What is the point of a benchmark if you pick and choose what you want from it? This is literally a case of reaping all the benefits without the corresponding responsibilities that comes with it. It is a misnomer to call it a benchmark as it appears to be a convenient explanation to justify a stand that already taken.

In the PAP's opinion, the top 1000 earners in the private sector would have the necessary skill set to take up political office. However, this assumption omits the one most crucial factor that every great leader in history has in common, that is, empathy for the people that they lead. That is the difference between good and great, a leader and an administrator, the right person that would take up political office and someone in the top 1000 earners list. This is the one defining quality of a great political office holder.

The PAP is of the opinion that only the brightest, smartest, most capable individuals make good ministers. Nothing could be further from the truth. At best they would be good administrators, but not necessarily good ministers. Ronald Regan was a radio broadcaster and an actor before he took the post of the highest office in USA. Winston Churchill's academic failures were legendary. Despite their lack of academic success, one was instrumental in ending the Cold War and the other was PM when Great Britain literally stood alone against Hitler's mighty army. Both accounted themselves spectacularly, but neither were the brightest, smartest or most capable individuals and both would sadly have fallen through the net of PAP's mould of a good minister. Singapore needs good leaders with moral courage, understanding and empathy for the people. The PAP must understand that academic results and business acumen do not necessarily a good political leader make.

Despite going so far as to peg political salaries to the top earners in various professions, the PAP has failed miserably to attract "talents" from the private sector. This is a clear indication that pay is not the predominant issue. Perhaps re-thinking of the haughty way it presents itself to Singaporeans would be a step in the right direction to attract people to public office. An exercise in humility might prove fruitful. I am certain that future policies that put the general population as their focus would go some way into convincing skeptics that they are really here to serve. PAP should learn that at the end of the day, academic smarts and earning capacity are poor indicators of a person's political office potential.

Despite these logical points arguing against it, PAP has nonetheless argued that this benchmarking is sound because they hope to attract the best talent from the private sector and thus the pay should be benchmarked against the top 1000 earners, who by virtue of their position in the private sector, would have the necessary skill set to take up public office.

Taking the same line of thought, we should be comparing with other world leaders, as these are individuals who would most definitely have the identical skill set as any local political office holders, or even an expanded skill set which our leaders have yet to possess or even be exposed to. 

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like


社区猫咪被安置在垃圾槽区里头,爱猫网民担忧猫咪被移走选择报警处理,最终淡滨尼市镇理事会承认处理方式有疏失,于本周一(18日)公开道歉。 22岁的Rachel Ong上周五,于上周在脸书上发文称,发现两名清洁工正安置一只猫在垃圾槽区中,当事人曾询问清洁工该猫是否属于居民的宠物,但清洁工却置之不理。随后,她试图联系当地市议会却联络不上,最后选择报警处理。 从两段视频中可听见猫在垃圾槽区中响亮的叫声,Rachel试图以喵叫寻找猫的踪影: 然而第二段视频则是可见猫正在瑟瑟发抖,张嘴用力呼吸,Rachel表示可能是因为猫被困住时过度紧张才会出现的过度反应。 据更新帖文表示,警方与猫福利协会(Cat Welfare Society)随后到场协调,并将猫带出去。 淡滨尼市镇会本周一亦发文证实在处理动物安置上确实有缺陷,并公开向居民道歉。市镇会表示,已多次收到有猫在居民单位外尿尿和排便,因此有居民反映要求解决问题。 然而,市镇会称的工作人员资历较浅,因此在安置猫的问题上并没有太多的经验,所以才将猫安置在垃圾槽区。 市镇会也强调,从来未有伤害猫的想法。 猫福利协会亦向《海峡时报》透露,目前已将猫重新送回社区内,而且经了解,该区经常收到将猫另外安顿的要求,而且虽然猫的失踪愈来愈多,类似的要求也愈来愈多,但两者是否有相关仍未知。 “虽然安置可能是猫失踪的原因,但也有可能是其他原因造成。”

Netizens chide Minister Grace Fu’s remarks about adapting to intense weather; demand Govt fix drainage issues

Singaporeans must learn to adapt to more frequent extreme weather due to…

不仅惩戒 毕丹星:法律有责任助罪犯重新融入社会

对于触法行为,许多人的反应往往是负面的。工人党秘书长、阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星,提醒我们对于一些事件只知片面,看到别人自私行为固然令人气愤,但不应再让网络言语偏见、自大,也不应主张以暴制暴,把事情越闹越大。 在阻断措施期间,出现一些未有充分理由、拒绝戴口罩的违例事件。这些人都会接到罚单,而辱骂、对执法人员动粗,都可想而知会遭提控。 不过,毕丹星提醒,法律存在的意义,“不单只是处罚犯人,它也有责任让罪犯在受处罚后,可以重新融入社会。” 潜在心理问题 在新加坡,甚至在世界上的任何一个社会里,总有一群人身上或许有着潜在的心理问题,这也可能解释为什么他们对明明是非法的事情,却知法犯法。 2010年,国会通过刑事程序法典法案(Criminal Procedure Code Bill),法案允许法庭可发出强制性治疗令。法庭判决的处罚,可考虑让有心理问题的被告,接受强制性的心理治疗,以代替监禁。 上述法律在2018年扩大,工人党当时也支持这个做法。 毕丹星在脸书贴文指出,在判处强制性治疗令之前,法官必须要求提呈一份强制性治疗报告,报告必须由卫生部指定的心理医生准备。 被告也必须符合以下几点:…

One wishes for hindsight, another to rewind the clock, but none wants to face up to reality

They keep looking back and wishing for the impossible when the right…