Hi all,
I had a pretty long discussion on the political structure of Singapore and its weakness structurally. The article below basically substantiates the problems of having such a structure and whether we can still move forward. Below is an article from a 17-year old girl who is quite a celebrity now. Her article and blog was highlighted in (surprise, surprise) Straits Times. Her comments prompted a reply from one of the perm sec as well.
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
The issue of Singaporean ministerial salaries has been a hotly-debated one, at least behind the scenes of mainstream journalism. I did a quick search on Google to find out the exact figures, but couldn't find as wide a range of independent observations and chronicles as I normally like to, so as to lend the information credibility. If anyone has differing figures they deem more accurate, do update me. But the consensus I gather from the Internet is that our ministers are the highest paid in the world, and that the Prime Minister's basic salary is USD 1 239 240 per annum, or SGD 1 958 000 (I converted SGD to USD using the latest exchange rate of 1USD=1.58SGD; again, tell me if I'm wrong with the figures). That is more than six times that of the US President's salary of USD 200 000 per annum.
The defence the PAP has always launched against the accusation that their salaries are too high is to say: "We must do so in order to prevent corruption." I have always found that to be a thin excuse. What, after all, is corruption? The use of one's position in order to profit illegally. High ministerial salaries simply permit the PAP to use their position in order to profit legally. A simple analogy: it is illegal for someone to shoplift a gold necklace from a jewelry store. But this thievery would be perfectly legal if we had no laws against shoplifting in the first place. One could profit in an arguably unethical manner without breaking any laws. Similarly, it would be illegal for the Prime Minister to siphon away $2 million a year. But as a politician in power, instead of siphoning it away, he simply ensures that he can receive $2 million a year in a perfectly transparent and above-board manner. That's what they really mean by the concept of high ministerial salaries removing the need for corruption. They don't need to be corrupt: we just hand over the money anyway.
Yes, there are benefits to the system. It keeps corruption under control by removing the primary incentive for it - money. And a corruption-free government undeniably attracts investors. According to Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) we are ranked as the 5th least corrupt nation in the world as of 2005, after Iceland, New Zealand, Finland and Denmark. But the investigation does not, and must not stop there.
There is a basic principle to keeping ministerial salaries from skyrocketing, and it is one that is often overlooked in Singapore. Politicians in our government exist not to further their own interests, but to subordinate their personal advancement to the needs of the nation. They serve the nation, and not the other way round. As a child, I used to wonder why they were called civil servants - the word 'servant' always had insulting connotations of someone that's second-class, servile and unworthy of much note. But as I grew, I came to realise that there is great dignity, perhaps even the greatest dignity, in being a servant of others; in placing their needs above your own, and in committing yourself to serve and protect them. That is the sacred vow, the tacit contract that politicians undertake by entering this service. Lower salaries make it clear that they are fundamentally different from those in the private sector who seek to profit from their positions, making the frequent comparison between public workers and private ones like corporation directors or media stars totally redundant. The nature and purpose of their work are as different as night and day. Managing ministerial salaries ensures, too, that people do not enter politics simply to gain from the high pay and benefits, but that they do so because they genuinely want to put their talents to the good use of representing the country. Else, people would work towards entering the government simply because of the dangling carrot that is a fat pay cheque - which would clearly have disastrous consequences for us all.
That is why George Bush, who is the leader of the most powerful country in the world and has far more responsibilities than PM Lee will ever have, is paid five and a half times less. That is why there was such a public outcry when TT Durai's salary was uncovered - it was legal and above board, but it was wrong in principle. But here in Singapore, this important principle is over-ridden, once again, by the excuse that it keeps corruption under control. Very well then, let us bring that reason under scrutiny. According to the aforementioned CPI, there are four countries in the world which are even less corrupt than ours. As Singaporean ministers are paid the highest in the world, it obviously goes to follow that all these countries' ministers are paid less than ours. I did a bit of research and found out, via this article, that New Zealand PM Helen Clark's salary is NZD 305 000 per annum, or USD 189 440 - less than George Bush, and six and a half times less than PM Lee (I converted 305 000 NZD into 189 440 USD with the latest exchange rate of 1.61). New Zealand is ranked 3 places above Singapore in the CPI, as the 2nd least corrupt government in the world. Why is it that New Zealand ministers can be even less corrupt than our ministers, and yet are paid so many times less?
If we allow ourselves to succumb to the mentality that we need to pay them obscene amounts of money in order for them not to be corrupt, we are implying that they otherwise cannot be trusted; that unless they benefit so much from their positions, they cannot do a good job; that our ministers are six and a half times more inferior, six and a half times more selfish and six and a half times more prone to corruption than ministers from New Zealand (not to mention Iceland, Finland and Denmark). I would like to be convinced otherwise, but the message being sent by our high ministerial salaries is proving it difficult. Let me tell you what makes it even more difficult: that salaries are being paid to the members of our government, on top of the lucrative salaries they are enjoying in their professional lives.
This brings me to the next issue: politics in money. Our MPs do not work full-time. They hold very prominent positions in businesses all throughout Singapore, and little wonder, too; they are recruited from these positions with the natural assumption that their high-flying careers make them capable, and not forced to give up their jobs, which are extremely demanding and exacting. Only Chiam See Tong, as of April 21 2006 (the release date of the CNA article I'm reading at the moment) is a full-time MP. The PAP made it a point to tout their new recruits as being young professionals. Does this truly work for them? Will such young professionals, dedicated to their burgeoning careers, be able to devote all their time to the needs of the community they serve? I quote Steve Chia: "You can see the long queues at the Meet-the-People sessions every week. Residents are sometimes even turned away. How can MPs serve their constituents fully if they don't have the time to do so?"
Let me get this straight. The basic monthly allowance that MPs receive has more than doubled over the last decade from $4516 in 1995 (not inclusive of their legislative and secretarial allowances amounting to $825) to $11 917 presently, and only one MP has stepped down from his job in the private sector? Meeting the needs of their constituency is still a part time occupation? Talking to residents is still a part time occupation? Serving the nation is still a part time occupation? But let's not be overly excited. After all, perhaps these jobs are not so demanding - perhaps they are easy shoes to fill, with time left over to look into other things like, you know, governing the nation.
Or are they?
I went to the complete list of MPs, last updated 11 May 2006, and did background checks on 3 randomly-selected MPs. Ong Chit Chung, Jurong GRC: Independent Director of WesTech Electronics Limited, and the President of Davos Life Sciences Pte Ltd (sounds like three jobs to me). Ong Kian Min, Tampines GRC: Lawyer/Consultant at prestigious law firm Drew & Napier. Cedric Foo, West Coast GRC: Group Deputy President and President Asia/Middle East of Neptune Orient Lines. Any one of these jobs on its own sounds like a time-consuming, extenuating and exhausting position to fill. How much time left over do they have? How much time are they inclined to spend on leaky toilets, flickering lights, and a resident's license application or financial woes?
There is more to the discussion, of course - the possible clash of interests when an individual serves both in the public and the private sector, hence giving him the power to formulate policies favourable to their own business interests, or the other manifestation of 'politics in money' - relations of government leaders who have high-ranking positions in prominent companies, government-linked or otherwise. But for now this should be sufficient fodder for us to ponder over, and have a second look at this dirty but unavoidable word of money, and the role it plays in our politics.
