Salaries for a Capable and Committed Government

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [16 January 2012].

"That this House endorses Paper Cmd. 1 of 2012 on "Salaries for A Capable and Committed Government" as the basis for setting the salaries of the President, Prime Minister, Speaker and Deputy Speakers of Parliament, political appointment holders, and Members of Parliament.". – [Mr Teo Chee Hean].

Question again proposed.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, for a country with a voting population of only 2.1 million citizens, Ministerial salaries in Singapore are by far the highest in the world. It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that the debates surrounding Ministerial salaries are also the most emotive anywhere in the world as well. In the minds of many citizens, Ministers cannot make mistakes. The connection is logical. If you pay top dollar, you would expect top performance.

Over the Christmas period, I took the opportunity to ask friends and relatives what they would consider to be a fair wage to pay a Minister and an MP in Singapore. Although this was not a scientific exercise by any stretch, on average, the figure for an MP hovered around the $10,000 mark, while the total wage for a Minister, excluding his or her MP's salary, ranges from $30,000 to $50,000, bonuses included. As reinforced by the Committee, with figures such as these, no Minister would need to worry about his ability to meet the financial needs of his family or have to face a drastic reduction in his standard of living. Many whom I spoke to were shocked that Ministers have hitherto received their pension. If anything, public servants who have for the longest time deserved the pension are our Division 3 and Division 4 civil servants, some of whom draw a salary of around the $1,500 mark. But paradoxically, even years after the private sector removed this anachronism, the PAP Government persisted in retaining for their high flyers until this Committee's recommendations.

Once again, the emotive reaction of Singaporeans is completely logical and understandable. A few months ago, I asked via a Parliamentary Question the monetary amount each Minister in the last Cabinet could expect to receive in pension. The Prime Minister, however, gave an answer to another question – one that was not asked – instead explaining how pensions are calculated. The reluctance to reveal hard numbers provides yet another glimpse into the reasons behind the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to Ministerial salaries. I can confidently say that this Government will never release how much each retiring Minister received in pension, although I hope I will be proved wrong, especially since one PAP MP announced on Monday that Ministerial salaries are transparent and published. Well, following that logic, we should expect the pensions received by retiring Ministers to be published as well.

Page: 1018

Mr Speaker, Sir, the political landscape today is anchored by expectations of significantly higher levels of transparency and accountability. To that end, the Committee must be commended for its decision to remove the very concept of a pension for Ministers. In my mind, this has been an apocal recommendation made by Gerard Ee's Committee and I hope Singaporeans duly credit them for it. They did not just remove pensions for Ministers. They have set the benchmark for good governance, accountability and transparency in public service. The Workers' Party welcomes this development as the high water mark of the Committee's recommendations.

It is in the good governance, transparency and accountability that the Workers' Party proposes a simple, straightforward formula by which to determine political salaries. Unlike what was reported by The Straits Times today, specifically one headline which read "WP proposals on pay not that different", the principles behind the Workers' Party's proposals differ significantly. The reasons for these differences were, perhaps, best illustrated by Deputy Prime Minister Teo on the first day of this Debate. Because it is the principles behind the numbers that matter. Where the Committee could have done much better was to remove this concept of pegging Ministerial salaries to the top 1,000 earners in Singapore. It also persisted in pegging MPs' salaries to a percentage of the Administrative Service superscale -- yet another visage of elitism that should not be extended to the political realm.

My erstwhile colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao, made the point about pegging political salaries with the rank and file of the civil service in his speech on the first day, at the MX9 level. But no PAP MP wanted to go there. It is apparent that the PAP are fine with pegging salaries to an elite corps of individuals, many of whom, discerning Singaporeans note, are also cultivated for PAP political office. In the minds of these discerning Singaporeans, the PAP Ministerial selection process is clear. You have to be selected as a Minister first before becoming an MP.

Two PAP MPs tried to address this Administrative Service elephant in the committee's report. One of them only managed to scratch the surface of the issue. Expectedly, that MP was the veritable conscience of the PAP, Ms Denise Phua, and the other was Mr Lim Biow Chuan. If I heard Ms Phua correctly, she wanted Administrative Service salaries to be reduced in line with the spirit of the recommendations of Mr Ee's Committee. Singaporeans should know why she felt that way. What is so special about this elite corps of 300-odd Administrative Service scholars out of the 127,000-strong civil service, a mere 0.02% of all civil servants? And why is the MPs' salary pegged to a percentage of the Administrative Service salary and why not to those of ordinary civil servants?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I started off my speech by referring to how much emotion political salaries generate in Singapore. The essence of the WP's proposals, specifically the de-linkage of MP's salary to some percentage of the Administrative Service salary and the top 1,000 earners' peg for Ministers, was precisely formulated by the Workers' Party to remove this emotion from any debate on Ministerial salaries, and to remove the overbearing odour of elitism from political office. It is the Workers' Party's contention that when you remove the connection to elitism, you take the emotive element out of the debate.

In retaining the unmistakable connection to the top 1,000 and to the Administrative Service, respectfully, the Committee has missed an opportunity to fundamentally address the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to political salaries. In The Straits Times today, Review Editor, Ms Chua Mui Hoong, wrote and I quote: "The issue of Ministerial salaries will continue to draw heated disagreement. The formula will be tweaked again, and the future Prime Minister would have to stand up in Parliament and seek the support of MPs and Singaporeans for yet another round of changes." If this comes to pass, it would indeed be a most unfortunate eventuality.

Page: 1019

Like my party colleagues, I trawled the Hansard for a record of previous debates on political salaries. Nothing this Government has said over the last three days signalled a real shift in the mindset of how to peg political salaries. Substantively, it certainly looks like business as usual. The Workers' Party proposed the MPs' be pegged to the MX9 level, the starting salary of entry-grade civil servants into the superscale ranks, not the elite Administrative Service scale when an officer at the age of 32 should expect to receive around $400,000 a year, depending on bonuses. If the Government pegs political salaries at the rank-and-file level of the civil service, a level the average Singaporean can aspire to, you remind all political aspirants what it means to be a servant-leader and you unmistakably inject substantive empathy into Singapore's political culture.

Ministerial salaries come next, and, like many developed countries around the world, you choose a suitable multiple that is politically acceptable to Singaporeans. We opine that Singaporeans can be persuaded by the reasoning behind the Workers' Party proposals. While they may be close to the Committee's proposal, the Workers' Party certainly expects a reality check on the 13.5-month bonus a Minister can receive – a figure that flies in the face of the Committee's commitment to clean salaries. For the record, standing to secure a bonus of half your salary can hardly be expressed as a clean salary. In monetary terms, it is akin to the perks some MPs in other countries get, like a car or housing allowance. With respect to the Committee, the Workers' Party proposal of a five-month bonus is much clearer, much cleaner and publicly conscionable.

As many Singaporeans would understand by now, the Workers' Party proposals take their cue from the rank-and-file of the civil service. Ordinary respectable civil servants who represent the spine and the spirit of the public service. One PAP MP was dissatisfied with the dental benefit of $70 the Committee proposed for Ministers. But if the rank-and-file civil service is extended a $70 dental benefit, why should it be different for Ministers? Do they have golden teeth? If this Government wants its Ministers to have more dental benefits, then extend the same privilege to our civil servants, for they serve the public, too. This is much preferred instead of treating Ministers differently. They are MPs and public servants first.

The new normal does not call for super heroes, as one PAP MP suggested. It calls for servant leadership. Servant-leaders are those who back proposals that are akin to what mainstream Singaporeans can aspire to. As the Workers' Party numbers show, this is achievable and you can still attract high quality individuals to politics, but only if you do not limit your MPs to come from the top 10% to 20% richest Singaporeans, as PAP MP Mrs Josephine Teo desires. Other PAP MPs have gone about the shortcomings of Workers' Party approach: to apply a multiple to MP's salary and thereby deduce the salary for Ministers.

Others suggested it is arbitrary and that you could decide to pay your Ministers by working backwards from a pre-determined figure. I was a little surprised to hear this from MPs like Mr Vikram Nair and Mr Zaqy Mohamad because the reasoning behind the Committee's proposals is no less arbitrary. As recommended by the Committee, MP's allowance is pegged to 17.5% of an entry-level Administrative Service superscale scholar. Ministers get a 40% discount of the salaries of the top 1,000 earners. Is that not arbitrary? Why not 10% or 12.5% of entry-level Admin Service super-scalers, or a 50% discount for Ministers as opposed to 40%? Can you not get to the figures you want, by manipulating these percentages? But it leaves me to acknowledge the intellectual honesty of Mdm Halimah Yacob who noted that whilst a specific multiple for Ministerial salaries proposed by the Workers' Party can be interpreted to be arbitrary, so were the numbers and percentages contained in the Committee's recommendations.

The neutral may say both the WP and PAP proposals are arbitrary, and I think the intellectually honest in this Chamber will be the first to raise their hands and say there is a lot of truth to this. But the difference lies in the principles behind the WP's proposal. We seek to persuade Singaporeans that political salaries ought to be underwritten by a key Workers' Party philosophy: that public service is open to all Singaporeans. The privilege of being of service to your fellow countrymen is the attraction of being an MP. You are an MP first before becoming a Minister. Public service in Singapore is for all Singaporeans, and opportunities to be a Minister should not be restricted or institutionalised to the few with silver spoons.

Page: 1020

To conclude, Mr Speaker, if human resource is indeed our most precious commodity, as Mr Gan Thiam Poh has reasoned, then it is indeed pragmatic that we send the right signal to all Singaporeans and open the prospects of political service, including becoming Ministers, to all Singaporeans, not just the top 10% to 20%. The Prime Minister also alluded to the difficulty that PAP may face recruiting individuals to become Ministers if salaries are not competitive. With respect, I would urge the Prime Minister to leave some room to consider the possibility that perhaps it is not the salary, career or family circumstances that is the issue. On the contrary, another reason could be that in light of the new normal, talented people feel that the PAP is no longer capable of hosting the aspirations for Singapore and no salary can move them.

We in the Workers' Party believe that choosing the appropriate benchmark is critical as it sends an unmistakable signal when the principles behind your salary peg is at a level the average Singaporean can empathise with and aspire to. In doing so, we believe that the emotions that have justifiably bedevilled the debate on political salaries over these decades will finally be assuaged. I may not have convinced this House but I certainly hope to have convinced Singaporeans that while the numbers behind the PAP and WP recommendations may not be worlds apart, the principles behind them most certainly are. Mr Speaker, Sir, I oppose the principles behind the salary benchmarks chosen by the Committee and therefore I oppose the motion.

2.34 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram Nair, do you want to make a clarification? Keep it short, please.

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Sorry, Mr Speaker, I was trying to get your attention yesterday because I think Mr Yee Jenn Jong asked me three questions. And I would like to address the one point that Mr Singh made, if I may?

Mr Speaker: Keep it short.

Mr Vikram Nair: Yes. The first question Mr Yee asked was whether I made my recommendations to the Committee: the short answer is "yes, I did" but I did it in writing because I did not think I was sufficiently special to ask for an audience. The second, and this is the more fundamental question: what is the difference I think between the Workers' Party's proposal in terms of salary and ours because I think the Member asked me to check with the Prime Minister why he said it was higher and I said it was lower. The answer is actually quite simple. I think I should perhaps correct the error which I realised Mr Chen mentioned in his Facebook page yesterday as well. The Workers' Party's starting salary for Ministers is $55,000. That is also the benchmark. On the Committee's side, however, the benchmark is $55,000 but the starting salary is lower. So, it is $47,250. That is one of the key differences. Now, what is the result of that difference? The result of that difference is that the Workers' Party's proposal results in a higher base pay for the starting Minister but a lower maximum bonus, whereas on the Committee's proposal, the starting salary would be lower but the variable bonus is higher. So what does this mean in principle? This means that earlier ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Nair, keep it short, please.

Page: 1021

Mr Vikram Nair: Okay, sorry. The key difference in principle is that in a year when performance targets are not met, the Workers' Party's proposal will provide more pay. And in a year when performance targets are met or exceeded, the Committee's proposal will provide more pay. That is the key difference in terms of how they work. The final question is how we should vote. I think one of the key points I was making is obviously we should all vote according to our conscience but there is not much difference in principle. We all believe public service should be the most important thing. Now, the Workers' Party has not said the salary should be reasonable, but looking at your proposal, the salaries are in the same ballpark. So, I think there is a lot of common ground. All I was hoping to do is to highlight the common ground.

Now, in terms of Mr Singh's point that I highlighted that the Workers' Party's proposal was arbitrary, that was not really as a criticism but more actually to highlight the fact that whatever formula you come up with, there is some element of arbitrariness. But one point I should make is that the Workers' Party arrived at $55,000, apparently independently by coincidence at the same number as the Committee did. What is interesting is that the probability of two four-digit numbers coinciding is miniscule, as anyone who has bought 4D would tell you. The probability of two five-digit numbers coinciding, I would say, is probably miraculous. This means there is probably some special agreement between us.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, do you want to respond?

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank ---

Mr Speaker: Similarly, please keep it short.

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes. I would like to thank Mr Vikram Nair for his comments. I just do not understand. Did he ask a question that he would like me to answer because I am not sure whether you were making a statement or whether you were asking me something? Could you just clarify, please?

Mr Vikram Nair: No, I was making a response in relation to your allegation that I had accused you of being arbitrary. In fact, that was really not an issue because we both agree there is some degree of arbitrariness in both proposals. But what I was pointing out is that we somehow arrived at the same benchmark, miraculously, through two independent routes.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Nair, thank you very much for that clarification. I am not going to agree with you about the "miraculousness" of the figures in the proposals that were decided upon by the WP and the Committee. But the point I made in that paragraph was to identify what Mdm Halimah Yacob had said. I think she brought up the point acutely. Well, I did not think that that point was made by you as acutely as she did. That is all I am saying.

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua, do you have a clarification, too?

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, I would like to ask a few questions to the Member, Mr Pritam Singh. First, I would like to ask if you would please agree not to comment further that I am the conscience of the PAP. I just want to state to everyone in the House that the conscience of many of my PAP colleagues in this House is intact and I am not the only conscience or the conscience of the PAP.

The second question is: can his colleagues not try to punctuate every comment that they make in Parliament with the Workers' Party brand. This is no more the General Election rally. We are here to discuss issues and serve our constituents, represent our constituents as MPs first and I think there is no necessity to try to politicise and brand the party every time we discuss important topics like this.

Page: 1022

My third comment is, to ask the Member if he had pre-empted what I said, even though I mentioned about the need to take off the cloak of secrecy over the Administrative Service, I really had asked the Prime Minister to conduct an independent review of the top civil service leadership that will go beyond pay to attract, develop and retain talent for a capable and committed Government. And that is what I have asked the Prime Minister to do. And I also agree very much with the Member that servant leadership is ---

Mr Speaker: Ms Phua, do you have a question?

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: --- a very important feature of serving in this nation and also that is a very desirable feature of trying to be a "superhero politician" here to have this ability to meet the broad bandwidth of expectations of politicians. Servant leadership definitely is a desirable feature of a politician that I would admire.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, do you want to respond?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I do not have anything to add to what Ms Denise Phua has said.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Jenn Jong.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to reply to one point by Mr Vikram Nair about this $55,000 versus $47,000. Mr Vikram Nair seems very determined to prove that the Workers' Party's proposal is higher than that of the Committee. Now, we have always been, in our recommendation, focusing on the main principles behind our proposal which I feel is important, the starting point from the MP pay. So, we have been using benchmark pay versus the Committee's benchmark pay. Of course, we understand that when we go into details, there will be some salary range and, as the Committee proposed, it will be between 0.85 times and 1.1 times of the benchmark. Workers' Party has not gone into the details of this because we feel it is not necessary at this point. It is better to debate on the broad principles. I do not know for whatever reasons he wants to continue to harp on these reasons that ours is higher than the Committee's, but I do not feel this is necessary and actually diverts attention from the main point that we are bringing up.

Mr Speaker: Mr Alvin Yeo.

Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, I would like to seek clarification of comments made by Mr Pritam Singh and by Mr Gerald Giam earlier, where they criticised the level of bonus set by the Committee as being up to 13.5 months as somehow not being consistent with a clean wage. I would just ask Mr Singh and Mr Giam whether they are aware that it is a commonly accepted ---

Mr Speaker: Well, Mr Yeo, Mr Giam is not around, so you may want to address Mr Singh's point.

Mr Alvin Yeo: Yes, Mr Giam is not here, so I would just ask Mr Singh then whether they are aware that it is a commonly accepted remuneration practice that the more senior the position, the greater the weightage of remuneration is placed on bonus. So, for instance, it is typical for a CEO to have more than half his remuneration based on bonus. The idea here is not that it is not a clean wage, it is made quite transparent so the Committee has made it clear that with the good bonus, a Minister would get $1.1 million. That is out in the open. The idea of having a heavier weightage of bonus is to make it clear that the Minister will not get that pay unless his performance is in keeping with KPIs which include national outcomes which improve the lot of Singaporeans. And my request for clarification is, does Mr Pritam Singh not accept that that is consistent with the principle of having a Minister being made accountable for his performance, not just with his own KPIs but with that of nationally set outcomes which better the lives of all Singaporeans?

Page: 1023

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I would like to thank the hon Member for his question also. I think he has probably put in the best way possible why the principles behind our proposals are so different. We are not looking at the private sector, the CEOs in the private sector, how bonuses are paid out to them. We are looking at the rank-and-file civil service. I believe that political salaries ought to have some comparison with the rank-and-file civil service. Now, if the rank-and-file civil service are not paid double-digit bonuses, then we feel in the same way that Ministers should not get double-digit bonuses.

And I think the other point that I tried to make in my speech was, if you pay these high bonuses, sure, it may be common or expected for CEO of GE or some other big MNC but what that works out in reality is an additional part of your wage which when you compare with other countries, you have these additional perks, motorcycle allowances, bicycle allowances that Mr Inderjit Singh spoke about. We feel that it comes to the same thing, in some different roundabout way. So, what we are saying is, there is a cleaner way to reach that clean wage definition, and that is by keeping bonuses a little bit modest and sober.

Mr Speaker: Mr Alvin Yeo, do you have a clarification?

Mr Alvin Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe Mr Singh has answered my question as to whether a higher weightage of bonus, more than half, is consistent with the principle of making Ministers accountable for performance. And with respect, I do not agree that the motorcycle allowance stands in the same shape and form as a bonus which is made transparent and known to the electorate.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you. I thank the hon Member for the follow-up question as well. I disagree with him, obviously. And the second point I would like to make is even if your bonus was, let us say, five months or 5.5 months, as the Workers' Party is recommending, does it mean that Ministers would be somehow less accountable? I do not believe so and my party also does not believe so. We feel that bonuses can be capped at 5.5 months and that is our position.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Pritam Singh probably misheard me when I spoke yesterday. There was a point where the Workers' Party talked about how the benchmarks result in monetising the value of political office, and I said that even the benchmarks made by the Workers' Party is an attempt to put some cash value, cash component to the work contribution of the Ministers. So, in that sense, would you then argue that this was an attempt to monetise the value of political office?

The second point I said was that whatever benchmark used will always be subject to question. And in any event, how did the Workers' Party come to a multiple of five times when it comes to the remuneration for Ministers? One could also question whether that is a right benchmark. So that was in the context of the point I made, whatever benchmarks, including the benchmarks made by the Workers' Party, why must it be a multiple of five, why not a multiple of two, why not a multiple of seven? And in that context, every form of benchmark would be subject to question.

Mr Pritam Singh: And I think that is precisely what I am saying as well, that any benchmark will be arbitrary. And I think the Member Mr Zaqy was suggesting that the Workers' Party's multiple was arbitrary but the difference between him and you -- not "you", I cannot say "you" -- between him and Mdm Halimah Yacob, the important thing that she did was she pointed out that both parties, both proposals, had an element of arbitrariness to it, and I respected that.

Page: 1024

The Minister of State for Finance and Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Speaker, Sir, allowing me to seek a clarification. This is to Mr Pritam Singh, of course. I was just puzzling over his comments about what I said and thinking about the proposals that have been put forward by Members from the Workers' Party. Well, as it turns out, the number that the Member has proposed to pay a Minister, is actually not very different from the number that the Committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee is paying. What that means, in effect, is that the Member is also proposing to draw roughly from the same population that the Committee is proposing to draw from, to fill our political leadership. So, how is it then that the Committee's proposal is elitist but then the Workers' Party's is not elitist? That is the part I fail to understand.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Member for her question. I think, really, the essence of where we are coming from was best enunciated by the Deputy Prime Minister on the first day. It is not the numbers that is the issue. It is the principle behind those numbers. And we have moved away from pegging Ministerial salaries to the salaries of the top 1,000 and the Administrative Service. And that is the principle we are getting at. And what we are suggesting is we do not need to peg it to people right up there. Peg it to the average Singaporean, at a level where Singaporeans can aspire to, not the numbers, the principle.

Mrs Josephine Teo: Thank you, Mr Speaker, much obliged. Again, Mr Singh, two clarifications. Did I not hear Members agreeing that the principles that were enunciated by Mr Ee's Committee are the same principles that you also subscribed to, unless I heard you wrongly? The second thing is that I also remember very distinctly the Deputy Prime Minister when he talked about pegging the salaries at number 1,000, he also distinctly said it does not mean we only draw people from around that salary range. Did he not make that clear or did you not pick that up?

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At the risk of repeating myself, I think what we are getting at and I think we have made this very clear: if you try and differentiate what the Committee recommended and what we are recommending, we are saying that the Committee's use of the percentage of the Administrative Service salary scale is something we do not agree with. So that is one principle that is fundamentally different. So I hope you are clear on that. If you are not clear, I am sorry. I cannot be clearer than this.

The other point was the one pegging the salaries to the top 1,000. Again, we do not agree with that. We think there is another way which is more acceptable to the public and critically, critically, we feel that will take the emotion out of the debate. And it will set the tone in future decades for a more sober assessment of political salaries.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Sir, can I just make a clarification? The Committee is not here but I have read the report. I do not see in the report anywhere that the Committee has pegged the salaries to the Administrative Service scale.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Deputy Prime Minister Teo, from what I understand from the Committee's report, MPs' salary is 17.5% of the entry level of an Administrative Service officer. That is where we have a difference of opinion.

Page: 1025

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, I have read the report very carefully. I hope that Mr Singh has also read the report carefully before he has made extensive comments on it. The MPs' allowance is pegged at 17.5% of the Minister's salary. That is what the report says.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, would you like to answer that? No. Dr Janil Puthucheary.

Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask for the hon Member, Mr Pritam Singh's opinion whether he agrees that the Workers' Party recommends that an independent body look at the salaries of the political appointment holders, the Ministers and the MPs going forward; whether he imagines that this body would seek a wide range of opinion from Members of this House - from the PAP, the WP and any other members of parties that may be present in the future. And I would like to specifically ask whether he believes this has already happened. It appears that Mr Ee's Committee, as an independent body, has sought views of the PAP MPs, it has sought views of the WP MPs and has come up with a non-partisan recommendation. And if he does not agree that it has happened, could he explain why? If he does agree that this has happened, could he explain why the WP does not support the motion, Sir?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I beg your pardon. I did not catch the initial parts of Dr Janil's questions because I was checking on the comments made by Deputy Prime Minister Teo. From what I understand from the report -- and if I have made a mistake or error, I apologise to this House because I think it is only honourable for me to do so – but where I am coming from really related to the numbers and I felt that the numbers were high and those numbers are specific, quite similar to Administrative Service officer salary numbers. But it is very clear in the Report that it is at the MR4 level and I acknowledge the error that I made. Could I ask Dr Janil to repeat his questions, please?

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, I asked whether Mr Pritam Singh believes that the process of salary review that the WP has recommended by an independent non-partisan body has already occurred? WP has made a proposal that going forward, the salaries be reviewed by an independent body. I have imagined that this body would seek views from PAP MPs, opposition MPs and I am asking if he believes this has already occurred in the process of Mr Ee's Committee making the recommendations.

Mr Pritam Singh: I would like to thank the hon Member. Just to clarify. I did not make any comments on this independent Review Committee's report. So I am not sure I can answer that question. Not because I do not want to but I did not refer to it in my speech. So, I do apologise to the Member but if I did not make any comments with regard to that particular aspect, I cannot answer that question.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not asking about the comment that Mr Pritam Singh made in his speech. I was referring to the WP's proposal which he based his speech upon for the salary reviews going forward, Sir. So, I would just like to ask the question – does Mr Pritam Singh believe or agree or accept that, today, here in this House, we are discussing a recommendation, a motion to support a recommendation that has been formulated by an independent, non-partisan Committee which has taken the views of PAP MPs as well as the opposition MPs as well as the wider public and put forth a non-partisan recommendation that it believes is in the best interests of Singapore? I am asking, Sir, if the hon Member agrees that that has happened. If he does not, I would like to ask why the WP opposes the motion?

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, if you feel that it is not in your speech, you do not have to answer.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Dr Janil, I believe, is asking do I feel that the Committee was independent, non-partisan. I have no reason to believe otherwise. But I can only speak for myself. I am not speaking for the Workers' Party.

Page: 1026

Mr Speaker: Let us move on. Mr Baey Yam Keng.

2.56 pm

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I entered politics in 2006, I had to leave my public sector job of 10 years to join a local real estate company. I was fortunate that my subsequent two-and-a-half years there coincided with a period of property boom and, as with many other colleagues, I enjoyed about nine months' of bonus, stock options and accommodation perks as the company also owned a serviced apartment subsidiary. Three years ago, I made another career switch and joined an international public relations consultancy where I still am now. This company practises a 12-month salary package and, comparing apple to apple, the terms and conditions are much less attractive.

However, I know that I should not make comparisons as it is a different industry now. I made a switch because I wanted to try something different and, looking back, I am happy that I made a jump, as I am now convinced that communications is where my heart is. Joining this line has offered me many good opportunities to develop as a professional and as a person. It is also very relevant to my role as an MP.

If I have expected the PR company to match or better the annual package and all the perks I used to enjoy, I would not have taken up the offer and would have missed entering a new, exciting phase of my career. As the Chinese saying goes: 赛翁失马，焉知非福.What we may lose now could give us better returns in future. So, we should not miss the forest for the trees.

The job of a political appointee is fundamentally different. It is not a position we can apply to. First, there is no application form. You need to be first elected by the people. And we have seen how voters' choice can change a person's destiny overnight. Then, the Prime Minister appoints his Cabinet. And it does not mean that once you are a Minister, you are going to stay as a Minister forever. There are now several veteran former Ministers serving as MPs.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he does not discuss the terms and conditions with his prospective Ministers. As we can see this time round after GE, our Ministers were already working hard in their jobs without knowing what they will be getting. And the cycle starts again every five years. I need to add that it is not easy to resign or quit for a Minister, if he or she finds a better opportunity or he or she does not like the work. It is like a five-year contract with no exit clause. In 1985, during a debate on Ministerial pay, Mr Lee Kuan Yew responded to Mr JB Jeyaretnam's proposal to cut Ministerial wages by at least a third, "And then we all become honourable men who have suddenly sacrificed ourselves for duty and public service."

Indeed, getting or agreeing to a lower pay does not make one more honourable. Likewise, being a Minister, whether past, present or future at a higher pay does not mean the Minister is less honourable. At this point in time, whether it is 53% for the Speaker, 37% for a junior Minister or 3% for MPs, this should not affect our commitment to serve the country, community and people of Singapore. It is a commitment that we all made when we went to the polls. Our constituents have voted us in and it is our duty to do our best to serve them.

The time that we all spend and the efforts we make in our public duty cannot be compensated by money. However, the experience and learning that we all gained working with the many volunteers and activists, interacting with residents and people from all walks of life, as well as the opportunity to make a difference for Singaporeans -- this is not something that money can buy.

Yes, the salary revisions will affect some people who are considering politics. Yes, we all cannot live on air, and we all have our families to support. However, people's aspirations change over time. There are people who give up successful careers to pursue different interests and passions in life. I believe and I hope that there will be enough good and talented Singaporeans who are not put off by material limitations. We need to have better faith in our fellow countrymen. Hence, I support that while we need to pay decent salaries, we need not be fixated on matching private sector pay. I fully applaud the discount taken off the benchmark.

Page: 1027

Mr Speaker, Sir, usually in a company, only your boss and HR know your salary. Your superior does your appraisal and HR policies guide your salary adjustments. However, almost everyone will feel that he is underpaid and deserve an increment and a higher bonus. Likewise, most people will think that others are overpaid and should get a pay cut and a lower bonus. Now, everyone knows what the Ministers are getting and everyone is the HR director. Everyone has a right to his opinion and to provide input to this review.

At this point, I am surprised by Member Yee Jenn Jong's clarification yesterday that the Workers' Party (WP) had met Gerard Ee for two hours, but had chosen not to share with him and his Committee all the points that his party has made in this debate in the last three days. Instead they kept some suggestions to be raised only in Parliament. Even if all WP's suggestions to the Committee were not incorporated in the final report, they could still have raised them in Parliament. So either they have not thought through this matter thoroughly, or they have changed their position, or perhaps there are other political motivations, I wonder. In fact, I am also a bit confused by the position taken now. I thought I understood WP's points that they are taking a different approach and, hence, the principles about how the salaries should be benchmarked or calculated, although the quantums are the same. But I heard Mr Pritam Singh's point just now that he made the reference towards Administrative Service pay – not in principle but because the quantum was similar to what is proposed by the Review Committee – so I am getting confused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there will never be a right formula. We can have an issue over the approach whether it is pegged to top 48th, 1,000th or 10,000th salaries, or should it be benchmarked against the lower percentile, or the civil service? I think we all agree that the public duty should have a discount, but is it a 40% or 80% discount? I think we all agree that it is arbitrary and very subjective.

Sir, I would like to make two suggestions. One, given that the benchmarks are based on the 1,000th salaries, there will be a one to two-year lag before data are available from IRAS. Hence, the situation may happen when top Singaporean earners enjoy healthy income increments in a buoyant economy, but when these salaries are used as the benchmark two years later, Singapore has gone into a recession. It then becomes politically not tenable to increase political salaries when people are being retrenched. We have seen it happened several times when increments based on the previous formula were deferred or forgone. I suggest that we fix the salary and have no adjustment for the full term of Parliament – that is, a fixed fee for a five-year contract. The National Bonus and Performance Bonus can stay.

I initially wanted to suggest an annual salary adjustment based on our Consumer Price Index. However, I know critics will jump to say that there is a conflict of interest as Ministers would then have no incentive to keep inflation down. So, therefore I know we cannot win on this, so let us keep it simple and stay with a flat basic monthly salary for five years.

My second suggestion. While I agree that we should have a "clean wage" without any hidden benefits and perks, I cannot help but agree with Member Denise Phua and disagree with Member Mr Pritam Singh that the medical benefits are really quite basic. I believe people can accept that our political leaders should have the best medical care either with increased coverage or even free of charge. We all cannot choose when or whether to fall ill or not, and it is in the interest of the country and Singaporeans that our Prime Minister, our Ministers are given the necessary medical treatment and recover well and fast to continue serving the nation.

Page: 1028

I hope the Review Committee will consider my two suggestions when it does the review again in five years' time. On the review frequency of five years, I am not sure whether the Committee has the intention to coincide it with the General Elections (GE). I think it may be good to let the Committee decide political salaries after GE. Hence, no candidates would know what salaries to expect when they are running for a seat. So perhaps voters will then be able to assume that all the candidates are really altruistic.

Sir, the public has been very demanding and critical of politicians, especially since GE last year. While expectations and standards should not be compromised, we need not get too emotive. We need to be patient and understanding that it takes time for the right action to be taken, for issues to be resolved and things to improve. Hopefully, the salary revisions will appease people's feelings, whether it is 53% or 3%. Let us unite as a country and as a people to overcome the many other challenges facing Singapore. With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yee Jenn Jong, do you have a point to clarify?

3.07 pm

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify on the point that is made by Mr Baey Yam Keng. He asked why we withheld information. I would like to clarify a few things. Number one, I did not say that he met Mr Gerard Ee. Mr Giam met the Committee of Gerard Ee. And I would wish to clarify the error in the report in today's newspaper that my colleague, Gerald Giam, met with the Mercer consultants who were sent by Gerard Ee to seek input from MPs.

As to the clarifications to be made, number one, Workers' Party was never asked to be part of the Committee but, nevertheless, we have very obligingly met for more than two hours and we shared all the key points that are in our proposal. There were no changes in our position. We shared our benchmarking principles, we shared various KPIs and stuff like that that is needed to be inside. What I meant when we say some details were not given, of course, we also need time. We met the Committee quite early in the stage and we ourselves have to convene our own research to go and gather information from various countries to benchmark. Of course, we would not have reached, at that point in time when we met the Committee, all the details that we need to share. But I would like to say it publicly that there is no shift in the positions of the Workers' Party and we have not withheld important information from the Committee.

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for clarifying that and I am surprised that the Workers' Party expected to be invited to give inputs to the Review Committee because it was a very public review and any member of the public was invited to send in their recommendations and suggestions to the Committee. But I can understand that perhaps the Workers' Party expected to be invited to give their points. And I did hear quite clearly yesterday Member Yee's point that not all information were shared so I now understand that he has now said that not all the details were not given, but all the principles and approaches were shared with the Committee. So I take it as what the Member has explained now.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, we understand that all members of public were invited to give their inputs and which we did. What I said was we are not part of the Committee. We are not a member of the Committee. If we are a member of the Committee, we would have behaved differently. Of course, we would be part of the research, gathering the data, analysing together with the Committee. But having not being part of the Committee, we, nevertheless, gave other inputs that we felt it is needed. It is the framework that we have used in our final report. We needed time to gather some data before we arrive at certain final figures. Was there any other part that I have missed out?

Page: 1029

Mr Speaker: No, I think that was all, Mr Yee. Mr Baey Yam Keng.

Mr Baey Yam Keng: Thank you, Sir. I would just also like to reiterate that I think none of us in this House was a member of the Committee. And, in fact, I need to categorically say that the Review Committee did invite every Member of this House to contribute to the review. I think it was stated publicly by the Committee when it was first convened.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: I am not sure what is the point that the hon Member is trying to get at. I would just like to state again that we have given whatever information that we had available at that time and, of course, we are rather disappointed that our benchmarking formula did not feature inside, and, of course, that is why we could not support the proposal.

Mr Speaker: Mr Yee, I think we have got the point. Dr Lim Wee Kiak.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to clarify with the hon Mr Yee regarding whether he thinks that for this independent Committee, the members should come from different political parties – to sit together. In that case, where is the "independence"? Or should this independent committee be formed by non-politicians – by different segments of the entire society, eminent people to sit together and decide on the politicians' salaries? So, should the politicians' salaries be decided by the politicians or by non-politicians?

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify that I am not saying that we must be invited. And I feel that what is more important is that the Parliament remains the platform for us to debate our proposal. We gave whatever we felt it is necessary to be given and we reserve the right to debate this in Parliament because that is the whole purpose of why we are here.

3.12 pm

The Minister of State for National Development and Manpower (BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to share my thoughts on this issue. A lot has been said over the last few days in Parliament and a lot of views have been exchanged by the public who obviously take an interest in this topic. I would like to, perhaps, take a slightly different tack to share on the rhetoric and the reality of service.

I am a new Member of Parliament as many of my friends are on both sides of the House. And this debate is useful for us to take a few steps back to ask ourselves very fundamental questions. I will address three things today: why we serve, what price our service and the rhetoric and the reality of this service.

We serve because we all, in this House, believe that this place called Singapore is our home and it is worth fighting for. We may have different views, and as I have said it before, if we strip the politics, the rhetoric out of these few days' exchanges, there is a lot more in common than we care to admit. We should not try to speak as if we are the most committed, the most passionate, the most principled, etc. We all are in our ways.

Page: 1030

Secondly, as the hon Mr Chen Show Mao states so eloquently, we serve because it is a privilege, and I agree. I would add that we serve because it is a calling. It is not a career. It is an honour that none of us takes lightly. I think all of us here believe in this. Importantly, we make sure that we do the real work on the ground. And we serve because we want to make a difference. For example, there is a prospect of economic downturn coming, not everything is within our control but we have been planning on how best to ride it, manage it and to look after Singaporeans.

Livelihoods are at stake. We do what we can, as we do on a whole range of issues. It is not just talk and debate.

Things are not perfect by far, but we continue to try and do as best we can.

On balance, Singapore is in pretty good shape considering the difficulties in the last decade or so.

Our work continues.

Who do we serve? We serve our people, our country, for today and for tomorrow. As the hon. Mr Yee Jenn Jong states, Singapore is not a company, nor a business. It cannot be run as such. All of us agree. It is far more than that. But should we not be prudent? Should we not put in place systems and processes to keep things going well? Should we look at numbers? Should we look at details? Should we make those difficult decisions that are sometimes necessary but painful for some?

We face these decisions everyday in our households, do we not? At our work place? These are the realities of life. There is no point pretending otherwise and it is no less for a country. Does addressing these things make Singapore a company which is inferred when you made that statement? We address these because we are responsible and we care for the well-being of our people and our nation.

Let me share with you this card I received on Monday at my Meet-the-People Session from one of my residents. She is a single mother with an abusive ex-husband, with school-going children and was finding it difficult to secure a rental flat.

It is addressed to Member of Parliament, Mr Tan, not Minister.

谢谢你给我的帮助, 孩子们已经搬进新家了。心里对您的感激永远不会忘记。您帮助了我重新开始人生的第一步 ，也是最困难的第的一步。我会好好珍惜和努力往前走。 在这里还是要多一次说谢谢您。 祝您新年快乐、万事如意。

In English: Thank you for your help. The children have moved into their new home. In our hearts, we will never forget your help. You have helped me to take the first, which is also the most difficult, step to begin our lives afresh. I will treasure this and will continue to work hard to move forward. Thank you once again and Happy Lunar New Year.

This is not unique – I think all of us from both sides of the House receive such cards, acknowledgements from time to time.

We are all Members of Parliament, elected by the people.

Can we price our responsibilities? Impossible. This effort is not about pricing the office. But we all know that once we move beyond the proclamations of service, we need to work the mechanics of this. It is something we need to do, whatever the formula.

Page: 1031

As we have seen, Worker's Party accepts that we need to do that as well. Honestly, I think these principles are not dissimilar and are in the same ballpark. The numbers do not necessarily differ greatly, depending on what the performance is and so forth, and I do not intend to go into details on this.

So is the Opposition also pricing our service as well in this effort? Of course not!

Are the models very different? Let us look at this.

A very emphatic statement was made about us being MPs first. Indeed, we are. But I was curious when hon Member Pritam Singh made these grand statements of a political nature -- that for us, we are Ministers first, before MPs. There is no such thing. He added that only the top tier can become Ministers. I would suggest that it is rather untruthful. We are MPs first unlike certain MPs who have stated that it is not their responsibility to look after the low-income group, that it is the Government's responsibility.

That is why all of us as Members of Parliament, even as office holders, make sure we look after our residents as best as we can. We push the Government to do more, and complement the national efforts when we are able to. We do not wish away our responsibilities. We walk the talk as best as we can.

The Worker's Party suggests that an MP's pay be based on MX9 because it is an extension of public service. But then again, MX9 is also based on market considerations. This is part of the entire pay structure of the civil service -- from MX9 to beyond the Administrative Service pay. We look at the private sector pay and adjust it accordingly. MX9 is the entry level to the Superscale level. So, I suppose we add in some multiples to make up a credible political number.

So, on one hand – you have multiples of a top civil servant's pay at MX9. On the other hand, as proposed by Mr Gerard Ee's committee – a so-called discount factor on the top 1,000.

Mr Chen states that political service is not a discount factor. I agree. It is not. I have talked about why we serve.

So in the same spirit, would it be correct to say that in WP's reckoning, that Political Service is a "mark-up factor"?

I do not think so. That would be a cheap political shot. Because that is not what you mean.

My main puzzle is a logical one: the Workers' Party formula must come from some foundational perspectives – either it chooses the market-peg that we have worked on, or it puts forward another basis altogether. Pegging it to the public sector sounds good at first glance, but it does not count because the public sector too derives from that market-peg. So statements like "Cabinet is not an extension of the Private Sector" again sounds very good and we agree. But does it not then follow that under the Workers' Party formulation, "the public sector is an extension of the private"? Surely not, as well.

Pays are linked across sectors not because their missions are similar but because the empirical reality is that the same pool of people can flow to either side. There is no point pretending otherwise.

So I suggest that we are, in many ways, on the same song sheet. Which leads me to the last point.

As I said earlier, I totally agree political service is a privilege.

But you know it's not a credit card sort of privilege, and membership in Parliament does come with some privileges. I do not primarily think of it that way nor many of my fellow Members. For me, it is a calling to serve. It is a hard-won honour, but more importantly, it is a responsibility. Our responsibility as leaders is to apply our hearts and also our minds to best serve our people. There are practical issues we need to manage -- the budget, sustainability, and trade-offs. They may not be emotive or gut stirring, but that is what responsible leadership is about.

Page: 1032

Responsibility is not about flowery rhetoric but about translating this belief into reality on a daily basis, to make things better for our people.

Establishing a fair, transparent and pragmatic pay structure is part of that responsibility. Why do we pretend and paint it in negative political tones when in reality, you are doing very much the same with your approach?

What I found most troubling was that a committee was set up in good faith to seriously review the political salaries. Yet it now appears that the Opposition has chosen not to share with the Committee the ideas that they are so passionately championing. I understand that Mr Yee has explained. But two days ago, Mr Gerald Giam would not give a clear answer. But I thought Mr Yee's response yesterday was illuminating. In essence, the thrust of what he said was -- there is no need to share that much with the Committee because they would rather table it in Parliament. But the fact of the matter is that the Review Committee was set up to review the structure and the robust debate that we have today can still continue.

So, what does this suggest? I think if we are sincere in trying to make things better, we should help the Committee do the best job possible rather than focus on gamesmanship in Parliament.

Is this the First World Parliament that they are talking about? I see many First World Parliaments out there floundering. They consume their future and are embroiled in rhetoric and politics that keep them from helping their countries get out of their respective ruts.

But I trust that that is not the First World Parliament that you are talking about. And I think all of us want a model that works for us – regardless of what you want to call it.

There is this matter of sacrifice that I would like to address. It was shared that political service is not about sacrifice.

We do not all wrap ourselves in a flag and proclaim our patriotism. I believe all of us on both sides of the House serve for the right reason. We all take different routes. The hon Mr Chen, for example, left Singapore for many years. He became exceedingly successful and then returned to serve our people. Some of us have stayed on and served our nation in various capacities. For some of us, it is our entire lives. And in our own simple way, we are proud to have served and to continue serving.

I admire those who proudly proclaim that there is no sacrifice in stepping forward to political service. It took me a long time to decide even though I had been serving in our Army. Political service is public service but somewhat different. Does this make me a less committed Singaporean?

I am pained by the knowledge that I will miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever. In time, I will look back, and there will be gaps. But that is life.

I am not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivialises all of us who do cherish these.

Does that make all of us lesser beings?

Page: 1033

Political office is a privilege, a calling and a responsibility. Whatever sacrifices there may be, we do so because we believe there is a higher calling and it is worth this effort to step forward.

As a Christian, I believe that serving my fellow Singaporeans is my responsibility and count it as a blessing that I am able to do so.

As a soldier, I know and I have seen with my own eyes that real and true service involves sacrifice all the time. We sacrifice what we hold dear to serve something bigger than ourselves.

There is no dollar value that can be attached to this.

And neither should we play games by competing to see who can proclaim their credentials louder with savvy emotive laden language. Or who is more noble with the cleverer turn of phrase.

It is ultimately about human lives and our people's future. There are real concerns that our people struggle with, and it is our duty to make lives better.

While it may not make for good politics, we believe that it is the right thing to address this pay issue head on.

In being an honest Government, and I am not talking about corruption here, we try our best to deal with realities and to squarely address them.

Rhetoric is important. But it is more important to carry out our responsibilities as elected Members of Parliament as best as we can. Ministerial pay is something we need to decide on. Before the elections, I did make statements that I think it is something that we should review. I believe the recommendations are fair. It will provide us with a reasonable basis to implement this sensibly. With that, Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I seek a clarification from the Member on whether he sees a difference between the private-sector pay of the top 1,000, to which the Committee is proposing to peg Ministerial salaries, and the private-sector pay to which the salaries of our rank-and-file civil servants outside of the Administrative Service are compared to in the process of the review of their salaries?

BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin: I thank the hon Member for the question. There is a difference. What the Committee proposes is using certain segment of the pay and then bringing it downwards. What you are proposing is to take a segment of the pay and bring it upwards. The point is that we all recognise that the way we factor in salaries for the public sector has to take into cognizance how the private sector pays, because we are drawing from a pool of people who can move between private and public sectors. At the MX9 level, obviously at the Director level, it would be drawing from a pool of people of a certain age at that level, and then you scale it up. In essence, what I am saying is that while on the surface it sounds like it is different but, in reality, it is very similar. The numbers that are thrown up show that, actually, we are all in the same ballpark; rather, the Committee proposes a model but then perhaps you choose to spin it in a different way.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: I have two clarifications to seek from the hon BG Tan. First, I would like to ask the Member if he is saying that I am insincere after the clarifications I made to the earlier questions that all the gist of what is in our proposal has already been shared with the Committee. The second question I would like to ask the Minister of State and the hon. Member is whether he expects that in this First World Parliament, we do not have the right to come up with an alternative proposal just because some independent committee has looked into it and come up with a proposal.

Page: 1034

BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin: Sir, I thank the hon Member for his questions. Firstly, I do not doubt his sincerity. Let me place that on record. What I cited was what the Member said in Parliament yesterday. That, in essence, he had shared and he acknowledged that, and he described it now that he shared with the Committee some of the views and so on. The Member provided a bit more details today, which I recognise. But he did say something that was quite telling, which struck me, and which I found, on the one hand surprising, but also disturbing that, "Well, we need not necessarily tell them everything. They can wait for Parliament because that is what Parliament is for."

And I agree with him that Parliament is where we can carry out robust debates. But robust debates on the Ministerial pay structure, as proposed by the Committee, can still be debated fully and robustly even with providing the Committee that effort, to actively take in all the considerations so that they can do as best a job as possible. That is what Parliament is for. But when committees and various efforts are put in place to help make things better, we do what we can to help them and to put it forward. So it was on that point that I found disturbing. But I do not doubt the Member's sincerity in approach, nor do I doubt his credentials and his commitment. But I thought the whole approach was telling from the way the Member put it across.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I thank the hon Member for his remarks. I would just like to clarify because I think the impression is being created that just because not all the Workers' Party MPs participated in the Committee report or gave recommendations or suggestions that somehow we came into Parliament to try and undermine the Committee's findings, recommendations and so forth. I feel that impression is being created. If the Member feels that the Workers' Party politicised the issue -- and I think the Member is doing the same -- what I do want to say is that at no point do we feel that the Committee has been partisan, has been unfair to us or that they are supporting the Government or they had that conclusion already and they wanted to proceed to provide a report that the Government would have rubber-stamped, not at all. And I want to make that clear to the Member.

BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin: I am not sure why you feel so troubled. I apologise, no "you". I would like to thank the hon Member for his clarification. But I am puzzled why the hon Member feels disturbed because I did not make this allegation. It was part of the earlier conversation. In my speech, I did not address this point. But I think it is worthwhile to reflect on the whole approach. The issue at hand, now that I am here, is that if we are sincere about trying to change the Ministerial salary structure for the better, something that would be acceptable for our people, then it behooves all of us who have perspectives, passionate views, to help the Committee get to as best a solution as possible. This Committee is non-partisan. It is made up of people who are respectable, and it has drawn on many perspectives from the public. As we all know, there are many different views. It is not easy, but they have done the best job they can. The question is, and the honest point is, it does not stop the Opposition from not sharing everything and choosing to do it and raise it in Parliament. That is your right. All we are raising is, it is an interesting observation.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: I would like to thank the hon Member for clarifying that he does not doubt my sincerity. I may be repeating myself again. But I would just like to put on record that all important points in our proposals were shared. As you can see, the Committee itself took a much, much longer time to come up with its own findings. They had a lot of research to do. Similarly, the Workers' Party itself had to convene our own research and we had to spend a lot of time to do it. So when we were called to share, we shared whatever we could at that point in time. We did not feel that we had withheld any important information. Nevertheless, we feel that it is enough for them to work with.

Page: 1035

BG [NS] Tan Chuan-Jin: I thank the hon Member for that clarification. I fully accept that. The point I was making was on the points the Member made yesterday, and I think that is something that was of note.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm.

[ Mr Speaker in the Chair]

SALARIES FOR A CAPABLE AND COMMITTED GOVERNMENT

Debate resumed.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When this House discussed the issue of Ministerial salaries in 2007, I focused on the technicalities of the old formula, and what I thought was wrong with it. But I had failed to appreciate the bigger issue. Money changes how people look at things. Paying high salaries can be intellectually reasoned, but it affects the relationship between the Government and the people.

Government is not perfect. It has never been, and will never be. We have all, at one time or another, been critical of something the Government did or failed to do. But, as former American President Bill Clinton once observed, a successful country needs both an effective government and a good economy. No exceptions. In Singapore, we have both. Other government leaders, international commentators and experts agree that Singapore, and what we have achieved, is exceptional. This did not happen by chance. The people of Singapore deserve credit. And so does the Government.

Singaporeans know this, and are appreciative of what the Government has done. But the issue of political salaries, more than any other, has shaped the change in tone of our national dialogue. When we pay top dollar, we expect top results, and are less forgiving of errors. And so it has become with the way people treat Government. Any mis-step is met with the response that mistakes are unacceptable from highly paid leaders. Things have become more "transactional". The emotional connection, that redoubtable bond, which Singaporeans have always had with the Government, and which has been the bedrock of Singapore's success, is at risk of disappearing.

Will the new formula make a difference? Many Singaporeans have shared their thoughts on the subject, and there are as many opinions as there are people sharing them. But what I find interesting is that very few are willing to state precise figures or precise formulas which they would be comfortable with, let alone what everyone will agree on. I met a group of 30 bright, young undergraduates and I asked them, "What do you think a Minister or Prime Minister should be paid?" None of them was willing to offer a specific figure. They all agreed it was a very difficult issue. I met with a group of working adults and asked them the same question. Their answers ranged from $500,000 to $3 million. Again, they accepted that was a very difficult issue and none of them could say that they were more right or others were more wrong. No consensus at all. Even opposition parties cannot agree on the formula or quantum. Some have declined to go into specifics obviously to avoid scrutiny.

The Workers' Party has an alternative but, unfortunately, has also decided to play a game of cat and mouse. I am very puzzled by the exchanges I have been hearing in the last few days. Let us go back to the beginning. When the hon Mr Gerald Giam was asked about what he shared with the Committee, he declined to say, stating and citing that it was private. There are only two inferences, that is, either the Workers' Party's public position differs from its private position or that the Workers' Party has changed its position since the report came out. Otherwise, why is there anything to hide? Why keep it private? Then NCMP, the hon Mr Yee, let the cat out of the bag. He made the extraordinary statement that the Workers' Party did not share everything with the Committee so that they could raise them in this debate. Today, he stands up in the House and says that "Oh, it is not that we did not want to share everything that we had. It's that we were in the middle of doing research and we were not ready with all our facts and figures but we shared what we had." But that is not what he told the House yesterday. I have before me what he told the House and I quote. He said, "We do not feel that we had to give everything to the Committee and this is precisely what Parliament is here for." Later on, he said, "I believe Parliament is where we come up with another proposal to be decided upon." So, it is quite clear what the intention was.

Page: 1036

The Government had set up an independent Committee which took many months to ponder over the proposals, invited feedback from Singaporeans at large, received over 500 submissions. The whole purpose was to obtain as broad a feel as possible for the issue and try to come up with the best possible proposal and formula in the interests of Singapore. The Workers' Party decided to hold back some of their proposals which they say were meaningful because they wanted to come to the House and announce to everyone they have better ideas. In short, they put their Party's interests before Singapore's interests. I am not doubting Mr Yee's sincerity but I doubt his consistency. But it does not matter. Workers' Party can play whatever political games they want. It is their prerogative. Playing games and fence-sitting are the privileges of the Opposition. Politics is about making decisions, and the Government has one to make.

So let us go back and look at all the arguments. And there are many different arguments. But despite all this, I believe there is much common ground between Singaporeans on this issue, which is often ignored. I would like to talk about matters I think we can all agree on.

First, we can all agree that the Prime Minister and the Ministers have very important and difficult jobs. They affect almost every aspect of our lives. In fact, is there any other job which has a greater impact on the success of Singapore and the well-being of Singaporeans?

Second, we can all agree that we want first-class public services. When the former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Dr Paul Volcker, was in Singapore last year, he was asked what he thought of our policy on salaries. Dr Volcker is a world-renowned experienced economist. He has been a public servant all his life. When introducing him to the audience, Dr Kishore Mahbubani, I recall, made a point that Dr Volcker was content to earn a very modest civil servant salary despite the fact that he could have earned much more in the private sector, and I believe that was why he was asked that question by the audience. So I expected him to talk about the privilege of service. He did not. Dr Volcker's response to the question was simple and astute. He said it was a good idea to pay public servants well as it is important to ensure good public services. He cited the US Government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence that the US public services were seriously lacking. In short, in his view, you need good, capable people to provide good services, and you should pay good people well. The logic is irrefutable.

The third thing we can agree on is that not every capable person wants a life in politics. I dare say most do not. There are very good reasons for this, not least of which is the effect on their families. While we do not have an intrusive media, there is still a considerable loss of privacy and a significant impact on personal lives. That includes having your spouses and children being openly discussed and their conduct scrutinised. Who wants that? Many will feel, quite understandably, that that is too high a price, whatever the pay.

Page: 1037

The fourth thing we can agree on is that we do not want to set salaries so high as to make money the sole or main reason for seeking office. At the same time, we do not want it to be so low as to become a disincentive. NCMP Mr Yee says we are fishing for talent in too small a pond. But if we create financial obstacles for good, capable people who are willing to step forward to serve, we are only making that pond smaller. No one wants us to do that. Everyone wants to make public service open to all Singaporeans. Paying less does not make the pond bigger.

Now we come to the nub: what should we pay capable people who perform critical jobs? This brings us to the other "s" word, which tends to dominate this debate: sacrifice. It has been said that public service is a privilege and not a sacrifice. Again, no one disputes that. But that is not the argument. The argument is that leaders should make sacrifices because it demonstrates that they care about what they are doing. That is another thing we can all agree on: we want our leaders to care about Singapore.

But why do we look at sacrifice only in money terms? I think we are asking ourselves the wrong question. It is not how much our leaders should sacrifice, but what we want from them. I do not want someone who tells me his best quality is that he loves his country or that money is not important to him. Because these are the easiest things to say, and there will be no shortage of people who will tell that just to win approval.

What do I want from our leaders? I do not want them just to be smart and capable. I want them to be the smartest, most capable people in the room. I want them to be fair minded, hard working, compassionate and of unimpeachable character. I want leaders who will not be satisfied until every Singaporean has a home and the means to a better life. I want to know that if there is an outbreak of a deadly disease like SARS, a terrorist bomb goes off, or Singapore faces an economic crisis, we have leaders who have the courage, intelligence, experience and determination to do what is necessary for the good of Singapore and Singaporeans. I want leaders who understand that their job involves a sacred trust, a vow to devote every fibre, every moment, every thought, every everything, in service to their country. That is the true sacrifice I think every Singaporean should demand. And if we get the quality of people right, the question of quantity of pay answers itself. I believe more Singaporeans would agree with that.

That leads me to one more thing we can all agree on. It is impossible to answer the question of salaries in a manner which will satisfy everyone. And many have said so in this House. Even the Workers' Party agrees that there is no right or wrong figure. I would, however, make two suggestions.

Like others before me, Mr Baey included, I suggest that the proposed formula be tweaked to cap the salaries for the Government's term of office, with an annual increment for inflation. In other words, salaries will not rise if the benchmark median salary rises. That would create more certainty and, more importantly, put paid to arguments that this Government will pursue policies to favour the top earners to increase its own pay.

I would also like the Government to do more to keep Singaporeans informed and engaged on this issue. There is still much misunderstanding over salaries, and we cannot have a proper dialogue if people are working off different facts. For example, there are many Singaporeans who still believe that MPs will receive pensions although that was discontinued many years ago. Some even believe that MPs' and Ministers' salaries are tax-free. Not true. Within days of the release of the report, Mr Gerard Ee had to come out publicly and say that some had misunderstood his report and what it said. And despite the enormous publicity on this subject, some are still unclear about the details of the new package. Although I know some would prefer not to keep talking about this issue, I support the proposal for the formula to be revised every five years. I believe we should welcome every opportunity to debate it so that there will be a wider and better understanding of the facts and the arguments. It will also help if we publish annually and in clear terms the average pay package of Ministers, so that we can demolish mischievous allegations that Ministers would secretly earn more through discretionary and undeclared payments. This is fertile ground for those who seek to breed discontent and cynicism. Let us not give them the opportunity to mislead and divide Singaporeans.

Page: 1038

I end with a final proposition we can agree on. We want Singapore to remain an exceptional nation because that is really the only thing that keeps us relevant. This exceptionalism should not only be in the performance of our economy or the efficiency of our public services. It should also be in the trust and relationship between the Government and the people it serves. All around the world, politics and politicians are viewed with great cynicism. Cynicism weakens the Government, democracy and our country, and we cannot let that happen to us.

I, therefore, support the revision of salaries. The new formula is more relevant and intuitive. It deals with some of the criticisms of the old formula and does away with inequities like pensions. A thirty-plus percent cut is on any view significant. The National Bonus better reflects performance. Even the Workers' Party agrees that a monthly wage of $55,000 a month is fair. And as Mr Vikram Nair pointed out yesterday, even the difference in bonus computations may not amount to very much a different sum. So we now have a sound basis for the Government to move forward, strengthen connections with Singaporeans, focus on the difficult problems we know to be around the corner, and deliver on its promise for a better life for all Singaporeans. Because in the final analysis, that is all that really counts, and I think we can all agree on that. Sir, I support the motion.

4.15 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to clarify on what the Member, Mr Hri Kumar, has mentioned just now on what we gave to the Committee and how much we were willing to disclose to the Committee. I am just talking about this Committee and what we gave to the Committee.

We received a request from the Public Service Division to meet with the consultants from the Committee, and were asked to give our views on the issue. We had come up with a broad approach to Ministerial salaries even before the election and that is reflected in our election manifesto. Of course, our interest was to want the Committee to come up with as good a recommendation as possible that would be in the best interest of the nation. So if we had not wanted that interest of the nation, we would not have even answered the Committee's call for inputs. We would have just withheld everything. So what we did was we went for the meeting with the Committee and I am holding in front of me the document which I took with me to meet with the Committee.

As far as I can tell, we gave all the feedback that we had at that point of time in terms of the technicalities of the proposals that we felt would be important for the Committee to take into consideration. I can share some of those things which you might find familiar because we had mentioned that over the past few days. We talked about doing away with the current benchmark of tying it to the 2/3M48 formula. We talked about KPIs for the Ministers and measuring the Ministers' bonus against the achievement of those KPIs. We talked about doing away with pensions. So this is something I mentioned in my speech that I was glad to see that we have done away with the pensions for Ministers. We also talked about tying bonuses to the achievement of those KPIs. So those are just some of the proposals that we put forward.

Hand on my heart, I know that we did not withhold anything that we knew at that point of time. But, of course, when the Committee's proposals came out, there were many more details that we could not have foreseen that appeared in the Committee's proposals. So I think it is fair for us to be able to analyse the report, as a responsible party, and come to debate on the basis on that report, rather than on what we had held our positions earlier on.

Page: 1039

Mr Hri Kumar Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not understand why the Workers' Party could insist on dancing at the end of that needle. Let us go back. When the hon Mr Giam was first asked about this issue, he said he did not want to disclose what he shared because it was private. He considered it private. Why? Is it because what they shared privately is different from what they disclosed publicly? Is it because what they disclosed is different from the position they are now taking? Why does it have to be private? He is a politician. He serves the public. He should be more transparent. Well, at least he believes in transparency – a statement which many of his colleagues make. Then, when Mr Yee comes up, and he tries to defend Mr Giam, he says and I again quote, "We do not feel we have to give everything to the Committee and this is precisely what Parliament is here for." And then he says, "I believe Parliament is where we come up with another proposal to be decided on."

So it is very clear what their position was. They were not willing to share what they disclosed to the Committee or what they shared with the Committee, and they wanted to reserve some arguments for Parliament. And the only reason why they want to do that is because they want to come up and say and tell the whole world that "I am cleverer because I have a better idea, and let me tell everyone about it." Never mind that months, hours, a lot of resources were spent by Mr Gerard Ee's Committee to put together the best possible package for Singapore. They were playing political games. Today, they come and say, well, it is not that they did not want to share but they were not ready with the research, they had to re-formulate their thoughts, and so on and so forth. They are plainly being inconsistent and they have been called up on that.

Dr Janil Puthucheary: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask Mr Gerald Giam if he would be willing to make public the document they shared with Mr Ee's Committee?

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: That is something that we will consider.

Mr Speaker: Mr Edwin Tong.

4.20 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in this debate on a motion which I agreed is one of the few critical issues we have to tackle in ensuring that we continue to have a strong foundation for a good government for the future of Singapore.

This has not been an easy issue to tackle. From the time the question of raising political salaries was first discussed in 1981 to the time it was last debated in this House in 2007 when the Government was justifying a further increase, I can well understand the tension when raising political salaries. But this time, we are looking at a serious reduction and there still seems to be a lot of disagreement. Or is there?

In the lead-up to the last General Election, this was an issue which was canvassed. The social and moral compact between the Government and Singaporeans were strained, and there was a deep disquiet amongst many Singaporeans over the level of salaries. But the Prime Minister and his Cabinet acted swiftly. Within days of the General Election, an independent committee was set up to relook and review the salary formula. Like many Singaporeans, I was somewhat surprised not only at the speed of the Government's pro-activity in dealing with the issue and their concerns, but that it was prepared to put this sacred cow issue up for scrutiny again. Whatever one may think of the Committee's recommendation, I am heartened that the Government has responded to ground sentiments and moved swiftly to address the issue.

Page: 1040

Sir, any discussion on salaries is bound to be emotive. From salary or bonus discussions in a small business to a large corporate enterprise, and, of course, to a large national debate like this, there are many emotional arguments over how much is enough or not. What is the value of the public service ethos and what is the appropriate level of sacrifice? Invariably, such arguments are also shaped and contextualised by the subjective personal experiences and diverse backgrounds of the person making the argument. Different perspectives will give you different answers. But I would argue, however, that in this debate, we should consider the issue dispassionately and without the emotion. We should start by settling on what we want to achieve and then work out how we can get there. Cast aside the emotion and look at it logically. And if this Committee's report brings us closer to what we want to achieve, then we should all endorse this White Paper.

In looking at what we want to achieve, let me first start with some basic home truths which I believe are already quite indisputable. Singapore has come a long way in just over 45 years. We have been transformed from a tiny island to a bustling developed nation. We managed to do this because of the sheer determination, belief and strength of the founding generation of our political leaders and the competence of their succeeding generations. We now almost take for granted the economic and socio-political stability of our country that is only the envy of others. But the truth is, had it not been for a strong and visionary government, it could also easily have been very different for us. Just a short hop and skip from here will show you how we could have turned out so very differently. And we cannot do worse if we assume that this state will remain constant. In fact, it can be very transient. If we falter, we can be sure that our neighbours will seize upon it and take advantage. So we have to maintain our position well ahead of the competition. To do so, our Government and each Member of the Cabinet and each political office holder has to be capable, has to be committed and has to have creative talent married to astute leadership to get us home. We need the best and the brightest talents to be brought into public service as our Ministers and political appointment holders. That much, surely, must be a given. We want to be able to choose from men and women of the highest quality and who are capable of making it to the very top of their chosen profession.

So we know what we want. The next question is, in designing a remuneration system, how do we achieve that? How do we bring the best and brightest into the public service? That, really, is the debate on this motion. Because the best and the brightest are the people who are either at or have the potential to be at the very top of the private sector or their own chosen profession, can we get away by not paying these people competitive salaries? Can we just say, "You come in, we pay you X number of times some civil service salary – five times, nine times" – even if it is a fraction of what he might earn as a top private-sector professional – and expect them to step forward? I think if we look at that alone, the answer is obvious. If we did that, we would lose out. Singaporeans will lose out. We have to be realistic. In today's global world and economy, the options available to a talented and highly motivated individual are dizzying. They have an array of paths and options, both in Singapore and abroad, and we have to recognise that those options are the true opportunity costs of stepping up to public service.

But let me be very clear, public service is a noble calling. We have heard many of the Members in this House say that. And there is no place for anyone coming forward to serve because of the financial rewards alone. It is a cherished office, and a great honour to be chosen by the people of Singapore to lead and to represent them. But all of us in this House know that. We all know that. We all know it is a privilege and we all understand the intrinsic value of political service or we would not be here. If we would just consider the amount of time we, as Members of Parliament, spent in the work that we do against the additional allowances that we receive as MPs, I think it would be fair to say that most of us would not be financially better off in stepping up to serve. But let us not milk it with rhetoric and make emotional points and let it cloud our assessment of what the right approach ought to be. It is not, as the hon Member Mr Chen Show Mao says, "A question of placing competitive salaries as the first principle." They are all important principles and they work together. It is about finding the right balance.

Page: 1041

The starting point in recruiting a political office holder must still be that candidate's sense of public spiritedness, of service, of desire and of a need to want to put Singapore first, and his ability to deliver. Those are the primary considerations. And if we have that, then we will be considered. And in considering, the salary must be a neutral factor. That is where the salary formula comes into play. We must find a way to neutralise salaries as being a decisive factor for or against entry to public service, and a balance has to be struck. In my view, whilst tangible sacrifices are called for to give our political leaders moral authority to govern and to lead, the level of salaries must not itself be a disincentive for talented people considering a public sector career. It would be naive for us to assume that we can always rely on other people's charity in coming forward to public service at huge cost to themselves and their families.

As the Prime Minister has noted in his speech, Members of the front bench are here because of that same sense of public spiritedness and not for financial considerations. But we are designing a system for the future, and we cannot design a system that relies on the good hearts of people alone.

Sir, when anyone considers a career path, financial considerations matter. Let us not pretend that it does not. We all worry about mortgage payments, looking after our elderly parents, providing for the family, saving for retirement or just for a rainy day. Why should a bright young talent and potential political office holder be any different?

Sir, the only way to achieve this, in my view, is to start by benchmarking political office salaries to the private sector. We might discount it, as the Committee has recommended 40%, but as a matter of policy, it has to move in tandem with private-sector pay scales. And it is not a question of being elitist. Rather, it is just recognising the appropriate opportunity costs and setting up a salary scale that gives us the best chance of attracting that top talent. Let us ask ourselves, if we want as our political leaders people who are capable of making it to the top of their professional career, then, on balance, where are we more likely to find that top talent? In the higher income scale or the lower? And, as has been repeated several times too, I am not suggesting for a moment that a person outside the top 1,000 Singaporean earners will not necessarily be considered for political office. But that is not the question. The point is, in designing the formula, we have to look at where that talent pool is likely to be, and what the true commensurate opportunity costs would be. And as the Minister of State, Mrs Josephine Teo, says, "That is a basic HR tactic."

It is, therefore, unrealistic to de-couple political remuneration from market influences, and I would support the Committee's recommendation to retain the link to the market, with a discount. I would add that I see a visible tangible discount as being necessary to reflect that it is a deliberate mark-down from the market to signify the sacrifice and add to the moral authority of our leaders. In addition, I also think that a significant improvement has been made to broaden the reference points to the top 1,000 Singaporean earners and not just any earner in the chosen six professions. The old formula was debated vigorously in this House in 2007. I did not have that privilege of contributing to that debate. But it was never apparent to me why that formula was chosen and why only a select group of top earners was used.

So, I welcome this change which focuses the pool squarely on Singaporeans alone, broadens it regardless of profession. You could argue that the pool should be more than 1,000 or less, or that the discount should be more or less than 40% but that is a question of fine-tuning, a formula which can be re-visited at the next review. I would just say that as a starting point, given that the Prime Minister's new salary would rank him at almost 400th, I do not see a pool of 1,000 Singaporeans as being unreasonable.

Page: 1042

And I would add that for all the loud cries of disagreement by the Workers' Party, their own number actually gets us to within the same ballpark. You have heard the hon Member Mr Vikram Nair yesterday. You have heard several other comments today. The fact is they start with the same or higher base pay and, in fact, they pay more and continue to do so even after five years. I have taken the liberty of preparing a table which I felt best summarises the respective positions. If I could invite hon Members to please have a look at it. I have taken some numbers from the Committee's report and I have also extracted propositions from the speeches made by several Members of the Workers' Party the last few days. If you look at the base scenario of a 13-month package and -- there is a typographical error here -- it should be $46,750. That is based on paragraph 89, page 33 of the Committee's report. That is a 15% discount of $55,000. That gets you to a base salary of $607,750. You contrast that base salary with the recommended proposal of $55,000 on a 13-month package that gets you to more than $700,000 as a base salary. If you add the bonus -- the Committee's proposal for the benchmark bonus at mid tier would be $1.1 million. That is based on thirteen months plus the seven months which includes the bonus at $55,000, and that gets you to $1.1 million. It would be lower if it was used at 15% discount to the $55,000.

On the Workers' Party proposal, we have heard from the hon Members Mr Chen Show Mao, Mr Gerald Giam, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Pritam Singh. Collectively, they say it is three to five-and-a-half months, and I have given the reference at the bottom of the page. You will see that we get to an upper tier salary with bonus $990,000 or something just shy of $1.1 million. It is true that the Committee's proposal does recommend an additional bonus should Singapore exceed target expectations, but that is the benchmark. And if you do compare the benchmark, you will see that we are not far off. The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh says, "Well, the numbers are about the same but our principles are different." But earlier in this debate, the Member for Aljunied Mr Chen Show Mao says, "Actually we agree with the principles." So, which is what? Do they agree or not?

Sir, in the past, absolute numbers were used to stir emotions and sentiments against the salary scale. Now that the Workers' Party's proposal gives us the same ballpark, a different slogan is being trotted out – the people-up approach based on five times, nine times – but what does that mean? The hon Member Mr Chen says that the Workers' Party agrees that salaries have to be competitive. Competitive means attractive relative to what the comparable alternative is. In other words, what is your market value? If you accept that the competitive wage needs to be paid, then why peg it from the bottom up? I know of no corporate in the market which pays its CEO "X" number of times the salary of the tea lady, or "X" number of times the salary of some division manager. For all the criticisms of arbitrariness, on what basis do we arrive at five or nine times, if it were not just reverse engineering after already having arrived at a desired number? So, on this point on the benchmark alone, I would invite all those who do not support this motion to re-consider. Accept the recommendations of this Committee.

Sir, I would like to next turn to another feature of the report which I feel is important, and, that is, of accountability. There are two aspects to it. The first is the recommendation to keep to the "clean wage" principle. It has been addressed by several Members of this House, but it is a vital core principle and I will summarise why I say so. Political remuneration packages should be fully transparent and accounted for with absolutely no hidden perks and privileges. That has been the hallmark of Singapore's political-remuneration principle and I am happy to see it continue; and happier that on that score, there is at least consensus with the Workers' Party.

In the period before and after the Committee's report was published, one argument against political salaries which kept surfacing was that our salaries were not comparable to international standards. Again, we have heard that several times, and that on the salary of our own Prime Minister, we could get both Barack Obama and Tony Blair combined. But, is that what we really think or want? It must have been tempting for this Government to have said that you know what, let us get paid like Obama with the 132-room White House accommodation thrown in, an expense account, a private jet, paid vacations, and a private chef. It might have been easier. According to BBC reports, senators in Italy almost double their official remuneration with expense allowances as well as free rail, free flight tickets, and so on. In France, politicians get very low interest rates on housing and what is not commonly known is that if a Member of Parliament loses their seat in an election, he or she remains on full pay for half a year, and then a gradually declining proportion of the salary for a further two-and-a-half years.

Page: 1043

The Prime Minister has touched on what some of the members of the parliament in the UK have claimed for. And in the UK today, some three years later, it still remains an issue which continues to bedevil the proper functioning of parliament because they cannot work out how to really pay the MPs, and worst of all, this casts a great shadow, not just on the integrity of the parliamentarians but on the office of the parliamentarian itself. A number of parliamentarians, both of the front and back benches, from both sides of the House, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, all resigned in the wake of those disclosures, and some peers were also charged for false accounting. So, is this what we really want? Why are the critics of our formula seemingly content to accept and indeed advocate what is practised by other countries: a low official pay but supplemented by a variety of perks and benefits? It is a complete paradox and totally regressive. What do these perks cover? How much, for what period? For the spouse as well? Today, the claim is for home improvement, travel; tomorrow, it could be a whole lot more. You just make one exception, and we will go down the slippery slope.

Even the Australian Government, a model which the Workers' Party has said we should consider, has for some time now been criticised for being less than transparent and the addition perks and benefits which make up the Prime Minister's salary are unknown. This is not even taking into account a pension which ex-Prime Minister John Howard continues to enjoy, and the fact that some of these benefits or the benefits available to him in his tenure as a Prime Minister would continue to be available to him and his spouse even after he has stepped down from office. Can any serious comparison be made between the remuneration system of Australia and what the Committee has recommended? Sir, surely not. We should not even be comparing ourselves with governments who lack the political will and courage to be completely transparent with what each and every political office holder is paid. Sir, the value of a clean, transparent wage system cannot be under-estimated. What you see, is what you get. And we cannot move away from that bedrock which is the clean, transport system, to the slippery slope of hidden perks and benefits.

Sir, the second point on accountability is that of performance. The Prime Minister has addressed this in some detail but I would just like to make the point that if we accept the principle that we benchmark our political office holders against the market, then it would follow that similar comparisons ought to be made when it comes to the assessment of performance. The corollary of the market benchmarking is that our political office holders must therefore be held accountable like the private sector, and subject to the same rigours and risks. In order for Singaporeans to support remuneration formula, Sir, they must have the confidence and conviction that our Ministers and office holders will be held accountable to those very high standards, and I am glad to have heard the Prime Minister re-affirm that belief.

Mr Speaker: Mr Tong, you have one minute.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Yes, Sir. Let me just sum up then. I will make a few brief points. I think we have agreement in this House over the key principles on which salaries will now be determined. In terms of numbers, we are also in the same broad ballpark; there is clearly a significant narrowing of the gaps which previously existed. And by all accounts, this Committee's report and recommendations are, at the very least, a step in the right direction and based on right and sound principles. I think it is well reasoned and I think it makes the right judgment calls. It is, however, not perfect, it must be tested in application. It will evolve and I am sure it will continue to be fine-tuned at each review which the Government has said it will do every five years. There may be still some Singaporeans who will remain unconvinced; it will take some time to convince them, but we should and I hope the arguments can be considered with an open mind, dispassionately and without emotion.

Page: 1044

As the hon Member Ms Denise Phua said, because there are so many different views of the proverbial elephant, perhaps this is just an issue on which there may never be consensus. But, Sir, we have a duty to put out all the views so that even the blind will be able to call an elephant, an elephant. I personally feel it is time to move on. This is a formula which has evolved over 30 years, too much political capital from all sides have been spent on this. It is time we let our Government get on with the business of governing and improving the lives of Singaporeans and demonstrate that, indeed, it is worth the salary that we are arguing about. And then we might conclude that we are not really arguing over very much. I support the motion [ Applause ].

4.41 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I would like to bring the House's attention to this table that was circulated by the hon Member Mr Edwin Tong. And, specifically, to the bottom left of the diagram: the Committee's proposal with bonusto p 13 months plus seven months. That is the average, I understand the maximum is 13.5 months. And then we look to the right of that table, listing the Workers' Party's proposal. The Member has chosen five months or 5.5 months, which is the maximum of the Workers' Party's bonus amount. So, rather than jump, as the hon. Member Tan Chuan-Jin said that somehow the Workers' Party is playing politics ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, can you make the clarification?

Mr Pritam Singh: Sir, I am getting there. I would like to ask the Member, why did he choose an average figure for the Committee's proposal so far as the bonus is concerned, but the maximum figure for the Workers' Party's bonus. Should he not have compared average on average, or maximum on maximum?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, in my speech, I did say that $1.1 million represents what is the bonus fixed by the Committee at seven months, based on what they feel are achievements of the targets. And if they do exceed those targets, then you get a few months more, and that gets us to $1.4 million or thereabouts. If you were to compare that, like for like, I would still say we are in the same ballpark. If you look at the comparison, at the baseline level, it is $607,000 against $715,000. At the upper end level, on the Committee's recommendation, you get to a figure of about $1.4 million; at the Workers' Party's proposal, it is over $1.01 million. At the baseline level, the differential is also about $300,000 because if you look at the Committee's proposal at baseline, it gets you to a figure of about $900,000-odd versus the Workers' Party's proposal.

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, last clarification, please. Keep it short.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would just like to put it on record that in so far as this piece of paper has been circulated, it would have been just easier for the Member to compare like for like. I think he looked for a conclusion that the numbers are similar, but he should have just put the maximum amount vis-Ã-vis the bonus in the Committee's proposal; because he put the maximum for the Workers' Party's proposal.

Page: 1045

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I am not sure if there was a question in that, but let me just point out, too, that the Committee does say that at seven months plus the 13th month bonus, it is for meeting and achieving the standards, and those are good standards.

4.44 pm

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the debate over the past few days is encouraging because what it shows is that there is, in fact, more common ground than differences in the Review Committee's recommendations which the Government intends to adopt, and the Opposition's position. This shows that we have in Parliament a broad consensus on the fundamental principles which should govern Ministerial salaries, although there may be differences in details for final quantum. And we therefore have common ground on which to move forward.

The Committee based its recommendations on three key principles and there is no dispute on both sides that these principles are good ones and should be adopted. And I have some comments on them.

The first principle: the Committee benchmarked the salaries against the top 1,000 earners and applied the 40% discount. Now, it has been suggested that this is elitist, and that immediately makes it an emotive issue, because the underlying thrust of that assertion is that if you use this benchmark, then potential Ministerial candidates would not be in touch with the man-in-the-street.

I would like to suggest a different way of looking at it. In his speech on Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo said that the most important criterion for anyone seeking political office is the motivation to serve the people and the nation. Mr Chen Show Mao stated that "political service is a calling and that it is a privilege accorded by the electorate to serve Singaporeans" and that it is primarily "a privilege, not a burden or a sacrifice". These are similar sentiments, albeit expressed in different ways. But then, we must ask ourselves: to whom will Singaporeans accord this privilege? Singaporeans are discerning. They will not accord the privilege of leadership to just any and everybody. They know what good government entails. They also know what kind of Ministers they want. The type of person to whom Singaporeans will accord the privilege to serve them, must be a person with certain qualities. These include integrity, honesty, compassion, a desire to act for the better good of all as well as ability, leadership skills, communication skills, organisational skills and technical skills.

But where do you find these people? Chances are people with these qualities would by their very nature tend to be successful and would normally have risen to the forefront of any organisation in which they work, whether it be public sector or private sector. And this means that people in those positions would command a certain remuneration and have more options and choices. And this brings us right back to the first principle on which the Committee based its recommendations which is that salaries must be competitive so that people of the right calibre are not deterred from stepping forward to serve. So the first principle is not inconsistent with the concept that political service is a calling and a privilege. In fact, the first principle is intended to help us to get the right kind of persons to whom Singaporeans will accord the privilege to serve them.

Let me deal with the third principle now. There is no dispute on the third principle either. Everyone agrees that we should have a "clean wage" system. However, I find that whenever there is a discussion on a "clean wage" system, there is always a distorted comparison with other countries. The Workers' Party mentioned that their proposals were derived after reviewing the remuneration systems in 12 developed economies, including the UK and US. Now, the UK and US are the two most often cited examples of where their politicians earn far less than ours. And I thought that because they are cited so often, it is worthwhile to examine the politicians' remuneration packages in these two countries in a bit more detail. And you will see that in these countries, political office is not only a privilege, it is also about privileges. In fact, our more is less, and their less is more, more or less!

Page: 1046

The UK. When citing the remuneration of UK Ministers, one must take into account the Green Book. The Green Book is the Guide to the UK MPs' allowances. The UK Ministers' salaries may be lower but they get a whole host of allowances contained in the Green Book. Now, I encourage our MPs and members of the public to look up the Green Book 2009 Edition which is available online. It is seemingly transparent, yet totally opaque. It seems to be transparent because the type of allowances allowed are listed out, but it is totally opaque because you have no idea what amounts these claims come up to.

UK Ministers and MPs get the following allowances: Personal Additional Accommodation Expenditure. This is reimbursement for additional expenses staying away from their main home. It covers payments for a second home: Includes rent, mortgage interest, council tax, hotel accommodation, utility bills, gas, water, electricity, oil, telephone calls and line rental service charges, insurance and overnight subsistence of £25 per night that a UK MP spends away from his/her main home on parliamentary business. They also get administrative and office expenditure. They get staffing expenditure. They get travel expenditure. This includes public transport fare, mileage for cars, motorbikes and bicycles, reasonable parking, taxi and private hire car cost and overnight accommodation for parliamentary business. They have a travel card for train, air, coach, ferry and parking costs for themselves, family and staff, European travel and family travel. There is no restriction on the class of travel. They have communication expenditure. They have house stationery and postage. They have a re-settlement grant. They have winding-up expenditure. They have a security budget. And they do not have to pay income tax on any of these.

And this does not take into account the food privileges. I read an interesting article in the International Express , Tuesday, 10 January 2012 which reported that in the financial year of 2010/2011, the UK taxpayers had to fork out £5.8 million for their MPs' food. Under a UK taxpayer funded subsidy, UK MPs enjoy cheap meals, wines and spirits in the House of Commons. The International Express reported that in the last year this amount soared to £5.8 million, an increase of £87,000, notwithstanding that in June 2010, the Commons Commission said £500,000 should be loped off catering costs, and bar prices should match those of the High Street pubs.

In the UK Members' dining room, the UK MPs apparently enjoy artichoke and tomato salad with truffle dressing for £2.05, or a char-grilled rib-eye steak with hand-cut chips and béarnaise sauce for £7.80. So the International Express reported that this means that a total of £1.33 million was spent in the Commons bars, which basically means that for every £10 that a UK MP spent on lunch, £7.60 was paid for by the British public.

Workers' Party has cited Britain as an example of a country where information on political salaries and allowances is available and they have stringent disclosure rules. The UK system is not transparent. Transparency on the allowances was only forced upon them after an investigative journalist pursued the matter and even then it was only after years of trying to force disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The House of Commons resisted it on the basis that it was "unlawfully intrusive". It took a court action to get the information and it was discovered that the perks came up to millions of pounds. You can find this on Wikipedia and there is also the BBC website online.

I know that the Workers' Party is not suggesting that we should have the same kind of allowances provided in the Green Book. But the point is this: the UK Ministers have lower salaries precisely because their system gives them the Green Book allowances which are not transparent. To cite one part of the equation without also citing the other part is not giving the Singapore public the full picture, which is not right.

Page: 1047

I move on to the US. It is often said that our Prime Minister gets more salary than the US President. Our Prime Minister may get more salary but he gets far less in terms of the value of the total benefits package of the US President. There is an article on the Internet titled " 10 Most Expensive Presidential Perks ". You should read it. It makes for interesting reading. This is what the US President gets and this list is not exhaustive. In addition to the US$400,000 salary, he gets US$100,000 for travel expenses, US$19,000 for official entertaining. The salary is taxable, the allowances are not. And I also saw in Tuesday's New Paper that he gets an allowance of up to US$1 million a year for "unanticipated needs". One has no idea what "unanticipated needs" are.

The White House is not just an office. It is a residential home. It has 132 rooms, 35 bathrooms, a movie screening room and a bowling alley, swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, jogging track, putting green, cleaning, laundry and errand services and a whole house staff. The upkeep is US$4 million a year.

The US President gets a Chief Usher, an Executive Chef, an Executive Pastry Chef, a whole medical unit, a Social Secretary, a Chief Calligrapher. Oh! I forgot to mention he has a beehive. There is a beehive in the South Lawn which is installed to provide honey for use in the White House kitchen.

He also has for his transport Cadillac One - armoured limousine, valued at US$300,000. He gets Ground Force One, that is, two Black armoured buses for himself and dignitaries costing US$1 million each; Air Force One, that is actually two Boeing 747 jets under the name of "One" and it has a personal suite, a 26-member crew, a telecoms centre. Do not forget the C141 Starlifter Cargo Plane -- that is to carry Cadillac One to go wherever the President goes. Then there is Marine One which is the helicopter that takes him for short-distance travel and there is also a helicopter fleet which includes Sikorsky and Black Hawk helicopters. Then there is the holiday home and the retirement perks, personal security, state funeral. As I said, the list is not exhaustive. These things we do not give our Prime Minister and I am not suggesting that we should. These excessive trappings of pomp and grandeur are not what we want in our system. But the point is that if you wish to compare what the US President gets against what our Prime Minister gets, then you must take these things into account.

I come back to the second principle which is the discounted salary. And the benchmark figure that the Review Committee arrived at was S$55,000 a month. The Workers' Party disagreed with this approach in principle and they said, "if this benchmark is accepted by the Government, it would continue to send the message to potential office holders and Singaporeans that top pay is the benchmark by which the importance of the office is to be judged, and the value of political office in the final analysis can be monetised. It cannot be. Not even at the highest income levels."

Fair enough. Workers' Party says that we should instead apply the principle of political service first and then MPs as elected representatives of the people should be the starting point for the determination of Ministerial salary. The Workers Party then applied the principle of political service first and the figure they have come up with is $55,000 per month. So it is exactly the same figure as the benchmark figure. And the target or the group from which you would draw people who earn this is really within the same cohort. So we started from the top, worked our way down; they started from the bottom, worked their way up, we arrive at the same place. There is no disagreement there. The main disagreement is on bonuses. But even then you will find that there is no disagreement on the fact that there should be bonuses. And when you look at it, the amount, difference is not hugely significant. It is significant to wage earners who earn less. That is correct. But the difference between the two positions is not that much.

Page: 1048

Another point where we are not very different: yesterday Mr Yaw Shin Leong said that the Workers' Party had two other proposals to enhance the "twin towers of accountability and transparency". He suggested an independent commission for the Prime Minister whenever he seeks to change how political pay is determined, and he suggested that the findings of such a commission be subjected to debate in Parliament and to Parliamentary approval. Here we have the Review Committee. It is an independent committee. It is not called a commission, but it is the same thing. Now, we did not make it as a matter of law subject to parliamentary approval but the Deputy Prime Minister has brought the Committee's recommendations to Parliament to seek Parliament's endorsement. Same difference. The principles of accountability and transparency are met. So there really is very little difference between the two positions.

But at the end of the day, while I support the Committee's recommendations and I would endorse the motion -- because it significantly brings down the remuneration which was a cause of concern -- but at the end of the day, from the public's perspective, the issue of Ministerial salaries is not about logic, economics or formulas. It is about the connection between Singaporeans and their elected leaders. In any age, in any country and in any culture, what do people want of their leaders? They want good, capable people of integrity who can provide leadership and have the right technical competencies. They want leaders who they can identify with and, more importantly, leaders who can identify with them. They want leaders who empathise with them, who feel their pain, their worries, will listen, address their concerns, and provide solutions to the problems that people face.

And the thing is this: most people do not earn this kind of salaries. The instinctive feeling is: how can you connect with me? How can you feel what I feel when you do not have the same financial constraints that I have? How do you know what it is to feel like to live day after day in fear that you cannot pay your rent, your mortgage, or something as basic as food? How can you know what it is like to be afraid that you might lose your job because someone else, a foreigner who is a younger and cheaper option for your employer? How can you know this when your pay is so high? That, I think, is the real issue with Ministerial salaries.

And the answer does not lie in pegging Ministers' salaries so low that everyone has to struggle alike. No, the answer lies in this. That the Ministers, with the abilities that you have, with the skills that you have acquired, that you place these skills and abilities at the service of Singaporeans and help solve their issues for them. People do not object to good pay when it is well-earned. And if they feel that a Minister is really working hard for the people, then they are fine with that. Where they get upset is if they feel someone gets a good pay just because he or she happens to land the job of a Minister, and they do not see a real or visible effort on the part of that person.

What this means is that for each and every Minister, he or she must show that he or she is truly indeed deserving of the pay, and the policies that he or she initiates and implements must address Singaporeans' needs. Equally important is the Minister's connection with people. People respond well to Ministers who are in tune with issues of concern to Singaporeans, who identify the solutions and take action on behalf of the people. These are the ones that Singaporeans are happy to work with to achieve a better result for all.

Singaporeans do not appreciate it if a Minister talks down to them or in a way which they feel is patronising or condescending, or who brushes aside their concerns or worries. These, to me, are the key to public acceptance of high ministerial salaries: sincerity, compassion and high performance by Ministers, coupled with a real connection and close bond to the people they serve. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Page: 1049