High Ministerial Pay Debate

From The Economist:

As a citizen, I feel that ministers are entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the welfare and needs of the citizens when they are sworn into office, since we are the ones who chose them to lead us. I believe that all of us want a minister who has the passion to lead the people, and is willing to listen to their opinions and not someone who wants just materialistic objects, like money. Denmark has also the lowest corruption rate, and yet their ministers are paid around $300000, far higher than Singapore’s. In an interview by UniversityPost with Denmark’s Minister of Science Charlotte Sahl-Madsen in response to university deans in Denmark earning higher than she herself, she responded that she didn’t see anything wrong with the salaries considering that the deans are in charge of arduous responsibilities and tasks of education. Quoting from her, she said that the minister job is rewarding in many ways, and that the wage is not everything. I think that this is precisely the mindset which our ministers are lacking, and this result in them allowing for such high payrolls. I feel that the ministers forget all about listening to the people’s opinions; the influx of foreign talents would be a great example. Therefore, high salaries do not necessary attract people with compassion to public service.

Next, I feel that the ministerial salaries are too exorbitant to the extent where the government no longer pays attention to looking after its citizens, but only on developing Singapore as a whole, essentially widening the income gap. Even though ministers have longer working hours, a loss of privacy, and make sacrifices to serve the people, it does not justify the payroll. Then Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew defended the policies of the high ministerial salaries by arguing that the high salaries had kept Singapore’s governance top-notch and uncorrupt for 50 years. Although it is true that Singapore has indeed one of the lowest corruption rate in the world and that the high salaries do play a part in deterring corruption, I still feel that the ministerial salaries are absurdly high. Singapore’s Prime Minister is paid 40 times our Growth Domestic Product (GDP) each year, and not to mention that it ranks among the highest of all countries, he is still entitled to a pension for life even after stepping down amounting to two-thirds of his last drawn pay. Revisions of the ministers’ payroll are neither discussed in Parliament nor asked for approval or opinion from the people, and yet they draw taxpayers’ money at such a rate, isn’t it unreasonable to have the government decide their own pay?

I feel that lower pay should be implemented to attract competent and honest individuals to participate in public service. Decades ago in the 1960s and 70s when Singapore was still a country fighting for its identity and not a developed one, our founding fathers including Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and Lim Kim San were selfless men who served the people genuinely. Once, a Singapore government-linked company set up by Mr Goh learnt that he was living on a net monthly income of $8500 per month, and offered a cheque for $500000 to Mr Goh’s wife which they claimed was for in appreciation of a book the company had written on Mr Goh. His wife had instantly cancelled the cheque and wrote to the CEO to thank him for his kind gesture, and said that what her husband had done for the company was not for money, not for power, not for glory, or even to be honoured, but for Singapore and Singaporeans. Mr Goh was indeed a man we should all respect.

I would also like to mention an interview by Mr Yadav with Mr David Marshall in 1994, the year Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew suggested pegging ministerial salary with that of the private sector; Mr Marshall mentioned that there isn’t a need to have a minister earning so much money a year. As quoted from him “Where does the money go to? It can’t be eaten. Your children don’t need the money.” He said that the ministers should be contented with pay that is enough for them to use. After all, the poor like us could use the money for something more useful and we would be much thankful to the government. From the same interview, “We have lost sight of the joy and excitement of public service, helping our fellow men. The joy and excitement of seeking and understanding of the joy of the miracle of the living the duty and the grandeur. We have lost taste for heroic action in the service of our people.” This is what pragmatism has brought about today; money is more important than anything else. As a result, high remuneration will attract the wrong people to public service.

In conclusion, I believe that lower pay will attract more empathetic ministers who truly have a heart to serve the people, both the rich and the poor.