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.

Page: 941

Mr Alex Yam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for the challenge for being the first speaker today. The Committee headed by Mr Gerard Ee has spent many months soliciting public feedback and suggestions on the issue of political salaries and of course MP allowances included as well. Many passionate Singaporeans have stepped forward during the course of the consultation process to provide their perspectives and also detailed ideas on what would be an equitable salary to ensure both a capable and committed government that continues to place emphasis on service as an integral part of holding political office.

The bold adoption of the full recommendations of the Committee by the Government signifies a continued commitment to listening to public feedback and concerns and acting on it. A debate on the issue in this House is an important one especially if it involves the political leadership of our nation for the present and the future. However, I hasten to add that whatever our views on the subtle differences on mathematical formulas and benchmarks, it is important for us to remember that at the end of our debate the number of people who will be impacted directly by the adopted changes will add up to a grand total of just 100. This includes all eventual Members of this House as well as the President of the Republic. Only a grand total of 100 will experience the real impact of the change out of our entire population of 3.26 million Singapore citizens.

As such, Mr Speaker, Sir, I urge that beyond the debate that we are having now, which is important, we will all need to re-focus in future on the real business of government. And that involves keeping our focus on the people of Singapore.

In the Budget Statement of 2011, which this House adopted, we pledged collectively that the target is to raise median income of Singaporeans to $3,100 by 2020, which is to say a 30% increase in real wages in 10 years. That, in my view, is a debate that we should truly be having.

That a decrease in allowances or salaries by 99 members of this House and the President will not realise real wage increases for the rest of Singaporeans is not the moot point. What is of importance is that we fulfil that pledge through coherent and well thought-out policies that will help to drive up real take home income of ordinary Singaporeans. This is where a capable and committed Government is important.

Mathematically, looking at Goal 2020, we will require an average of 2.7% wage increase every single year to meet the targets. At the current moment, depending on who you ask and what statistics you look at, different analyses will derive different figures on the current rate increase. One report indicated that the average increase is about 2.8% for last year but has dropped to 0.1% if part-time workers as well as contract workers are also included in the calculation. Another statistic that was also shared recently at the SHRI conference was a much lower figure.

It is perhaps not ironic that the debate we are having now is occurring about the time that many Singaporeans are receiving news about their annual increments (AIs). HR consultants in a report by TODAY newspaper, at the start of the work year, projected a modest wage increase of 4% to 5% for this year. Taking into account the laws of averages, we seem to be on track.

However, at the same time, averages do not always tell the full story. This is because in the same report economists were quoted that the projected inflation may hover about 2.5% to 3.5%. That brings the target back down. In my interaction with workers over the past few months, many continue to be genuinely concerned over prospects for 2012. Some companies have also used the backdrop of a projected slowdown in the world economy to try to adjust lower AIs and bonuses in certain sectors. But the companies in sunset industries have not had an AI for their workers over a number of years. For these workers, their aspirations for real wage increase will certainly be a challenge especially with the global outlook and inflation. Workers wages certainly cannot take a discount.

Page: 942

One lady I spoke to recently is raising a family of five on a take home pay of only $760. She works six days a week. That to me is a real challenge of this House. While it is important for us politically to discuss the sensitive issue of political salaries, it is equally if not more important that we hunker down and plan for the improvements in the lives of our workers in Singapore.

Even amongst younger Singaporeans, we have seen in the recent Joint Graduate Employment Survey by the polytechnics that while many poly graduates are securing higher starting wage jobs, many are now on part-time or contract jobs where wage increases are more challenging year on year. So while a reduction of political salaries and allowances is a significant move, let us not forget that Singaporeans expect Members of this House to continue to focus on their interests and their daily lives in a bleak global economy.

Over the years many schemes have been introduced, for example, the Inclusive Growth Programme. Companies, such as McDonald's Singapore, have come on board. Last year, through productivity and efficiency improvement, full time crew members have seen an almost 20% increase in their wages. Yet, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other workers and many more challenges ahead for working people.

Returning to the subject of political allowances and salaries, I applaud the bold move by the Government to adopt the proposals by the Committee. Whether or not we all agree on the benchmarks or percentages, it is indeed a positive move and one welcomed by Singaporeans. What will be even more welcomed will be a continued display of capable and committed leadership in this House to positively debate on changing and improving the livelihoods of ordinary Singaporeans. 照顾弱势，缩小贫富差距，新精神，新思维. Let us continue in this House to show our care and concern for the less fortunate, reduce the income gap, and build a new consensus and a new spirit for Singaporeans. With that Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

3.08 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I will first deliver my speech in English followed by Malay. I wish to express my concern that this Government is still pushing the notion that Singapore needs to pay the highest political salaries in the developed world to ensure an honest government and attract talented individuals to serve the people. Are we sending the right message to the next generation that our top leadership may not function at a desired level if the Ministerial pay is not benchmarked against the highest income earners in Singapore? Do we really believe our top leaders will be less capable, less honest, and less committed if their political pay is not benchmarked against these top 1,000 private sector earners? Therefore, that the consequence of not paying top dollars to secure the service of future leaders is an incompetent and corrupt government? Does this House seriously believe we can have an honest government and prevent corruption simply by paying millions of dollars to our Ministers? If a Minister has a character flaw lurking inside him, can a million-dollar salary be the cure? How many Members in this House would have a second thought about serving the people if your salary is not benchmarked against top earners in Singapore?

Page: 943

The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday that there is no right answer to this complex issue of determining public office salaries. He also said it is a judgement call. But the message we send in this judgement call is important for the next generation. We certainly do not want to encourage and inspire the wrong people to enter politics.

This brings me to my views on our human capital and values we want to inculcate in our country. Yes, we are a small country with a small citizen population and we operate in an open economy. Our talent pool is naturally limited. The people's will to succeed is definitely not. This nation was started with less than two million people. Our forefathers have worked hand in hand with the first generation leaders to build this nation and they did well. Now that we have added over a million more citizens, is our will to succeed a lot less now than we first started? Have we left our values so far behind that we are beginning to believe that the best incentive to attract people to step forward to serve the community is just money?

In my experience as a counsellor, people who are passionate about serving the community do not quantify their sacrifice in dollars and cents. Likewise, people of the right calibre will not be deterred from stepping forward to lead the country even if they have to take a pay cut in the process.

Given that the ethos of political service encompasses a fair amount of sacrifice, to think that we can quantify that sacrifice by a 40% discount to the median income of the top 1,000 earners in the revised salary benchmark for Ministers, may be bordering on insult to many people who are serving the community at meagre wages.

Can we put a value on passion, ethics and sacrifice? Is the 40% discount in this revised pay formula a sacrifice on the part of the Ministers? Is there even a sacrifice to begin with when some of these potential talents are not even featured in the list of top 1,000 earners in Singapore before they entered into politics?

What kind of values do we wish to inculcate in the next generation? This is precisely why the Workers' Party is advocating a different approach in determining the benchmark for political salaries rather than starting the benchmark at the median income of the top 1,000 earners. The rationale is simple. Not everything is about money.

During the debate on the President's Address last October, there was a call to build an inclusive society. The proposal by the Workers' Party takes into consideration this notion. We call for a whole-of-government people up approach in pegging the salaries of Ministers and MPs to the salaries of senior executives in the civil service. The civil service pay is competitively pegged to general market conditions and any market adjustments made to this benchmark, positive or negative, will be reflected in the political salary. This approach I believe has the hallmark of an inclusive society as compared to the proposal to peg Ministerial pay to the top 1,000 earners. By aligning the political salary structures to the civil service, the empathy gap between our political leaders and the general population will narrow over time. As selected leaders, we should lead by example in an effort to build an inclusive society.

Page: 944

At this time, I want to address the points brought up by some Members of this House yesterday. MP Mr Inderjit Singh has highlighted that, unlike politicians in the UK, our elected Members here are not given additional perks on top of our salary. We cannot compare apples to oranges. Looking at the geographical size of the United Kingdom, we can probably understand why political leaders there are given such perks like housing, a chauffeur-driven car, meals and even laundry allowance. We do not need to travel long distance and spend time away from our family to attend parliament sittings, but our UK counterparts do.

The Workers' Party has studied and deliberated on the issue of perks and other forms of allowances which are not implemented here. That is why we propose to peg the salary of the Ministerial salary at five times the salary of an MP. This multiple is more than what is being practised in some of the countries we surveyed, which ranges from 1.2 to 4.6 times.

Next, I share the view of Member Ms Denise Phua about perception. That a glass can be seen as either half empty or half full. I still believe there is no right answer to the formula put up by the Review Committee. However, we need to remind ourselves that we are servants of the people. We need to remind ourselves to be humble, compassionate and sincere. The whole-of-government people up approach to benchmarking political salaries, as proposed by the Workers' Party, is a step towards building the emotional bond with the people we serve. It is a step towards creating an inclusive society. It is also a step towards inculcating good values in our future generations.

Sir, while we want to attract people of the right calibre to serve, we must also ensure we attract people of the right values to lead this nation. While we cannot leave the recruitment and development of leaders to chance, we certainly cannot entrench the belief that paying high salaries is the primary way to get competent people to enter politics. For many of us, our journey to this august Chamber began with a dream to build a better Singapore for all. This journey is certainly not going to end just because we are not benchmarked against the highest wage earners in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to continue in Malay.

( In Malay ): [Please refer to Pg 995 for Vernacular Speeches.] I agree with my colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao, that the move to reduce the salaries of Ministers and political leaders should be welcomed. However, the formula put forward by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries is inaccurate or dissatisfactory. The recommendation by the Committee to use the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, less a 40% discount, is still a top-down approach. We are of the view that this approach does not really show the inclusive and concerned character that the Government wants to inculcate. We believe that this approach can result in an emotional gap between our political leaders and the general public of Singapore.

We acknowledge that it is important that Singapore be led by political leaders with competency and skills that are good and appropriate. However, salary alone should not be the main factor to attract competent individuals. The involvement in politics should come from sincerely wanting to contribute and serve the people. So, we believe that the formula and criteria used for the ministerial salaries should be based on community service and inclusiveness. We propose that the whole-of-Government approach or a bottom-up approach be used.

Page: 945

The objectives and principles of political service are in line with the objectives and principles of the civil service. With this similarity, we propose that the ministerial salaries be based on the allowance of Members of Parliament, and in turn, the MP's allowance should be based on the salaries of the senior executives in civil service. In Singapore, the civil service pay depends on the general market conditions. Based on this proposal, the salaries of Ministers and political leaders will experience the same rise and fall that is experienced by a larger number of Singaporeans, and not tied to the top 1,000 Singaporean earners.

Before I end this speech, I would like give a reminder, especially to myself as well as to the leaders in the House, that this leadership position we hold is a trust given to us by the people. In carrying out this trust, we should emulate the spirit of community service, sincerity and humility. We must learn from the eminent world leaders, and understand and internalise the principles held by these leaders. Among the examples of eminent leaders is Mr Sun Yat Sen, a leader who sacrificed his career as a doctor in order to devote himself to change the lives of the Chinese people. He did not care or worry about leaving his job as a leader for sake of the people. The second example is Mr Mahatma Gandhi, who sacrificed his heart and soul for the people of India. I think that his virtues speak for themselves. Thirdly, Mr Umar Al-Khattab, an eminent leader in the Arabian Peninsula is famed for his humility and devotion to the people. He was a leader who chose not to have a throne or palace. He was more comfortable having the same living conditions like an ordinary citizen because of his highly cohesive nature and his wish to be in touch with the people's lives. He had also rejected the proposal that his son take over the leadership after he is gone. He rejected it firmly by saying that it is sufficient that just one member from his family becomes the leader.

What we can learn from these leaders are the principles that they applied and held to, and the leadership that they demonstrated. This allowed the leaders to successfully make major changes and bring a lot of benefit to the people that they led.

Mr Speaker, with this, I would like to end by rejecting the recommendations by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries because I believe that the formula used in the proposal is still lacking in terms of producing the inclusive and concerned character in Singaporeans.

3.21 pm

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, serving as a Member of Parliament is indeed an honour. I was nervous when I first ran for elections because I recognised it was a heavy responsibility. The job was certainly not easy, but the sense of fulfilment one gets from making people's lives better is more than anything money can afford to buy. I am humbled and touched each time a resident comes over to say "thank you" or expresses appreciation for what our team members have done for them. At the same time, I recognise that if one wants to be a Minister, one would also need skills in managing large budgets in organisations and in making decisions involving complex considerations. In some Ministries, such as law and finance, it is necessary to have Ministers who have strong technical skills in the areas, too.

Page: 946

It is, in fact, precisely because Ministers and office holders require special skills that are quite different from the skills of ordinary MPs, that many countries, including the US, have office holders who are appointed rather than elected. Even in the UK, which is probably the closest we have to our system, office holders are sometimes placed in the House of Lords because they have the necessary technical skills even if they are not MPs.

Now, I for one certainly do not think I have the skills or experience to run a Ministry and I am sure many other MPs would share that view. We are happy to serve and fight for our residents, but the running of Ministries requires people who are not only MPs but who also have the necessary skills and experience in making decisions at that level.

I certainly do not think we want Ministers who are motivated by money. I also have the fullest confidence that both our party and the electorate are sophisticated enough to weed out such people. At the same time, though, we do not want money to be an obstacle to people entering politics. I think many of our current office-holders probably took pay cuts to enter politics at the various levels they entered at.

Now, this is naturally an emotional topic. When dealing with divisive issues, I always think it is helpful to start on common ground. Surprisingly, notwithstanding the language used, I think there is actually a lot of agreement between people in this House. When I listened to some of the debates yesterday, they reminded me a little bit of the story in Gulliver's Travels. When Gulliver landed in the land of Lilliput, there was a big divide between people who wanted to break soft-boiled eggs at the top end and people who wanted to break the eggs at the bottom end. But at the end of the day, what you arrive at is a cracked egg. So, what is interesting here is: the Workers' Party has used very strong language to criticise the proposals of the Committee, essentially calling it "elitist" for pegging Ministerial salaries to the top 1,000 income earners. They then put forward their own rather precise proposal of pegging MPs' salaries to the MX9 pay grade in the civil service using a five-time multiple for the Minister's salary.

When I asked the Workers' Party if they had made this proposal known to Mr Ee's Committee, it was only out of fairness because I myself have not heard that before. The first time I heard it was yesterday. And if they are going to level such strong criticisms at Mr Ee's Committee, the least they could have done was put their ideas forward before the Committee came out with its proposals, rather than slamming them afterwards by saying, "Why did you not think of this before?" The public consultation was open for many months, and I think many Singaporeans had written in. I understand they received about 500 emails and messages. And that will probably mean there were 500 different opinions on what should be done. So in that sense, I think the Committee had a very difficult job.

However, in examining the exact principles used by the Workers' Party in its calculation, I actually think there is not that much difference between what the Workers' Party is proposing and what the Committee, in fact, put forward, except there is a small discount at each level. The Workers' Party has also come a long way from their previously-held public positions and pretty much abandoned most of them. So, in that sense, I think that the gap between Members in this House has, in fact, become extremely narrow.

Page: 947

The Workers' Party said at the starting point, that calculation of MPs' allowances should be pegged at MX9 civil service pay grade. I am not a civil servant myself, so I just checked. From what I understand, this is, in fact, not a wage that is at par with the average working level as the Workers' Party has tried to represent. In fact, this is the wage, I understand, that of a Superscale in the civil service. I think less than 2% of people in the civil service get this. So, the Workers' Party's starting point is certainly not the average wage level as they have represented. It is, in fact, much higher than that. I also disagree that an MP's allowance should be compared with a civil servant's pay because, for one thing, I do not know about the Workers' Party, but I know certainly most PAP MPs do not pocket the entire allowance. It is, in fact, a large part of the expenses we incurred in running our constituencies as well. I mean, in other countries, MPs get expense accounts. We do not get that. The allowance is, in fact, the sum total of the expense account and if there is anything left then that could be considered a "salary", but I would hardly consider it that. So, in that sense, thinking of the MP's allowance as a salary is, perhaps, the wrong starting point because I do not think that is what it is. It is, in fact, an all-in package that encompasses an amount you have to give back to the community as well.

But having said that, while I may disagree with them using that as a starting point, the number they come up with is not too far away from what we have right now. So, again, we may disagree on how we want to crack the egg but, at the end of the day, I think the number we arrive at is not too far apart.

The next point: the Workers' Party says that the Minister's salary should be pegged at five times the MP's allowance. This basically means the MP's allowance is about 20% of the Minister's pay. In fact, the Committee recommended 17.5%. Again, not very far off – a 2.5% difference. And the Workers' Party does not explain why it came up with the multiple of five times rather than four or six times. It could be any number in the air, but they decided on five, which miraculously, brings them very close to what the Committee came up with.

Another point that is interesting is the Workers' Party suggested that the benchmark we use for an entry-level Minister be $55,000. What is interesting is this: the Committee recommended $55,000 monthly salary as a benchmark, but the entry level was actually lower than that. In fact, it was precisely $46,750. So, in fact, the Workers' Party is proposing a higher starting salary for Ministers. And this is interesting because the difference in salary for one month is about $8,250. If you multiply that over the course of a year, the Workers' Party's proposed starting salary for Ministers amounts to about $99,000 more than what the Committee recommended. $99,000, incidentally, is about a two-month bonus based on the base salary of $46,750. The Workers' Party has raised a big ruckus about the quantum of the bonus. The starting salary they have proposed incorporates a two-month bonus based on the current starting salary. So, they have, in fact, proposed a higher starting salary for Ministers than even the one the Committee recommended. While the Workers' Party kicks up a big fuss about the bonus right now, it is important to keep this in mind because any bonus they calculate, for an entry-level Minister, would also be based on this higher starting salary.

Now, on the other point: this is where we deal with the bonus itself. Mr Giam says that the average bonus should be pegged at three months rather than the six months that the Committee recommends. Now, one of the interesting points is this: my initial reaction to the bonus component also was that it was extremely high. And, to be fair, that is a larger sum of money most ordinary people would ever get. But when I looked at the targets that were set for the National Bonus, I would also say that those targets are extremely hard to achieve. And I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister also clarified that the individual bonus component would be determined not only by the Minister's contribution to his own Ministry but also by how much he contributed towards achieving the national bonus matrix. In that sense, the national bonus matrix has become the target that our Government has set out to achieve. This target is a target I do not think leaders of any other countries have set out to achieve. And if you look at recent history, I do not think leaders of any other country have achieved.

Page: 948

We will just look at some of the targets. In order to achieve, say, the six-month bonus – the so called average bonus – this sounds like a big number. If you look at the targets, the GDP has to grow, and in real terms, by 3% to 5%. The income of the lowest 20% has to grow by 2% to 3% in real terms, and the median income has to grow by 2% to 3% in real terms. The word "real" basically means that this has to take into account inflation. Inflation, as at November, I believe, was about 5.7%. And inflation is pretty much a worldwide phenomenon. Central banks all over the world are printing money, commodity prices are shooting through the roof. Controlling inflation, in itself, is a challenge.

The targets the Government has undertaken actually involve not only making sure that incomes rise in line with inflation, but exceeding it. What that basically means is that GDP growth, in actual terms, may have to be – well, if it is 3% to 5% in real terms, that would be 8.7% to 10.7%. Incomes, likewise, will have to grow between 7% and 8%. If inflation comes down, those targets would come down. But the real point is that inflation is incorporated into all of these targets. And I do not know of any developed country, anywhere in the world where the government has been able to achieve these targets. So, indeed, even the target to get the so called "average" bonuses is a very difficult one. And if our office holders achieved that, I think the benefits to Singaporeans would be tremendous, especially to the average Singaporeans and also to those in the lower income groups. So, in that sense, I would not begrudge them that.

While the Workers' Party also makes a big issue about the so called "13-month" maximum bonus, needless to say the targets to achieve that would be astronomical, especially when inflation stays at the current levels. If our Government is able to achieve that, then I think the people of Singapore would be so much better off and that a couple of months' difference in pay is probably not that big a deal to divide this House over.

I was also a little surprised when Mr Giam ended his speech by saying he opposes the motion. Because given how much common ground there is between the parties, it is stunning that he would actually want to oppose a motion that, in my view, is extremely progressive, and brings us much closer to the Workers' Party's ideas than anyone that has ever proposed before. Because by opposing the motion, what he is actually saying is that he would rather keep the existing pay scales, than to move forward with the proposal the Committee has put up. And I do not think anyone here would agree to that.

Now, let me also deal a little bit with some of the previous positions taken by the Workers' Party because I actually think this proposal touched on a lot of the principles that were brought up back then as well. In 2006, for example, in an interview, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that the Ministers' salaries should be set at about a hundred times that of a worker in the lowest 20th percentile. At that time, he believed that this figure was $800. So back in 2006, Mr Low was actually comfortable with a salary of $80,000 a month for a Minister. He also took out the implication of this. What he said then was that it also meant that if the income of the person in the lowest 20% group rose by $1,000, the Ministers would get $100,000 more, not just a year but a month. So, he was actually quite comfortable with having the Ministers earn more, if the lowest-income workers earned more back in 2006.

Page: 949

In many ways, the Committee's proposal actually takes this principle into account. It, in fact, pretty much says that the income of the lowest 20% has to rise. It is, in fact, even less generous than Mr Low in two respects. One, the base pay is lower; and, two, the actual bonus is capped – it is not unlimited, whereas in Mr Low's example, the upside would have been unlimited. So, in fact, the salaries are less generous than what the Workers' Party proposed in 2006 in many ways.

Now, in the Workers' Party's manifesto, the position was slightly different. They actually said, both in 2006 and 2011, that the Ministerial salaries should actually be pegged to the salaries of foreign leaders with all their expenses and so on taken into account. But the reality is this: this is a notoriously difficult exercise and I notice that the Workers' Party, despite having said this for the last five years, has not come up with a single proposal on what the numbers would actually be if this formula was applied. And they have had five years to come up with this.

I myself tried to do this exercise and it was very, very difficult because a lot of the actual bonuses and perks are actually very obscure. I took a stab at Australia just now because it was the first country on the list. Over there, I think, the Prime Minister receives an annual salary of $495,000 a year, which obviously looks more, compared to what our Ministers earn. But the Prime Minister has two official residences while she is in office. In previous sessions, the Members of Parliament of the Opposition had said, "We are quite happy to have our Ministers live in bungalows." The rental of a bungalow in Singapore, according to Property Guru , checked as of this morning, was between $25,000 and $42,000 a month. So, if we include that as part of the pay package, as one of the perks, just monetising that perk alone would probably amount to $300,000 to $400,000 more a year. And this excludes other perks such as free first-class travel for herself and her spouse for the rest of their lives, a fully-paid-for office for the rest of their lives and, of course, all the expenses involved in keeping up the house, and so on, would also be paid for by the state. And these are just some of the perks. There are, of course, lots of other perks – I have not had the ability to find out the values for all of them because they are found in so many different pieces of legislation and are so difficult to put together. So in that sense, our clean wage system – what you see is what you get – is, in fact, one of the most transparent you would find. And because of that, our Ministers come under flak. But I think that is fair game because people should know exactly what the cost of public office is, nothing hidden.

Ministerial pay is a highly emotive issue. I think the fact that the two sides of this House do not, in fact, differ that much in the ultimate outcome is a good start and I hope that we can all get together and support this proposal because, ultimately, it seems like we have more similarities than differences. [ Applause. ]

Page: 950

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.35 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

[ Mr Speaker in the Chair]

SALARIES FOR A CAPABLE AND COMMITTED GOVERNMENT

Debate resumed.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 996-998 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, I support this motion.

Yesterday, the hon MP Chen Show Mao and other MPs from the Workers' Party said that pegging ministerial salary to the salaries of the top 1,000 earners is not appropriate. I think we must try to understand why the Committee made this decision from another angle. I believe all of us accept that a Minister's responsibility is no less than that of the one thousand people. We use this benchmark to affirm the importance of political appointments because they relate to the welfare of 3.5 million Singaporeans and this country's future as well as our expectations and the requirements for these positions.

To make it easier for the common populace to understand the required responsibilities and accountabilities of Ministers for Singaporeans, we can try to look at the issue from another perspective or angle, as suggested by some Singaporeans, for reference. The Prime Minister is our leader and he must be responsible for the well-being of 3.5 million Singaporeans. Therefore, his salary can be based on our population, say, one person $1 per year, so that is $3.5 million per year. With that, perhaps all Singaporeans are able to feel the balance at a more comfortable level. Regardless of our ethnic, religious , language and cultural background, we are all Singaporeans. Poor or rich, we are all Singaporeans. As long as you are Singaporeans, the Prime Minister looks after your well-being. Notwithstanding, some may say $1 per year is not much, some may say it is not little. The Prime Minister takes a pay cut of, say, 37%, so as to remind himself there is a need to work even harder to improve the livelihood of the 40% lower middle-income Singaporeans. With that, the figure was adjusted downwards to $2.2 million, which is not much different from that recommended by the Committee.

If we set the entry-level ministerial salary as half of the Prime Minister's because his responsibility is half, that will work out to be $1.1 million. And this is similar to the amount recommended by the Committee so the result is all the same. The difference is just a matter of angle/perspective.

Honestly speaking, the appropriate compensation for political decision makers is a sensitive topic and it is not easy to reach 100% consensus. Everybody has a different view and everyone's line of reasoning has its valid points, and we should respect them.

Page: 951

The Government has sensed the ground sentiment from the election results and is willing to accommodate public opinion, hence the establishment of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries. No policy is 100% perfect. I believe that the report has presented sufficient and convincing data and basis for their recommendations, and it is transparent. The pay recommendations are based on three principles. I support these principles and thank MPs from the Opposition party for their support as well.

Firstly, the pay must be considerably competitive to attract talent. I think we should adjust our focus, not to look at numbers alone, but on the requirements of the job, the responsibilities and contributions towards our country, society and all Singaporeans. Scouting for the best talent is not something that only the Government will do. Even in our daily life, we often try to get them. For example, many of us hope to find a capable, hardworking domestic worker to do the household chores, take care of the young and old; those running a business will hope to find a good helper to bring in profits for the company, expand the business and create more jobs; at hawker centres, we look for the best food, the most value for money and the most economical; when we see a doctor, we will look for the best to cure our illness; when we look for a wife or husband, we also hope to find a good partner. Hence, to want the best is understandable. Many even pray to the gods and hope to be granted their wish. In order to get the best, some of us are even willing to pay for a premium, in the hope to avoid risking paying an even higher price in future.

In China, there was a story about buying bones with a thousand gold. A palace official went to buy a splendid steed, but returned with the bones of a dead horse instead. The emperor was enraged. The palace official explained that if everyone saw that the emperor was willing to pay a thousand gold for the bones of the steed, they would believe that the emperor genuinely intended to pay a premium for a splendid steed, and would voluntarily send their horses to him. In the end, what the palace official said came true, within less than a year, thousands of horses were sent to the palace.

Singapore has limited human resources, there is little room for mistakes. We must attract top talent to join the civil service. It is difficult to decide on the basis of choosing talent. One cannot underpay talent as we would then end up with an ineffective government, but one cannot overpay or it will trigger feelings of unfairness. The recommendations by the Committee actually reflect the realities of governing a country and the needs of the changing political scene.

Secondly, salaries should be at a discount of market rate, in order to exhibit commitment and dedication. Those who enter politics must have a strong sense of mission and responsibility, with moral integrity. It does not mean that if one is rich, he will be happy. Only with a clear conscience will one enjoy peace of mind. Whether it is the Government or private sector, both are hungry for talent and cast their net for talent, but with different goals. The private sector also tries to attract talent with better pay, so that it will achieve maximum result for the company. Entering politics is a sense of mission, to serve the people wholeheartedly and is a long-term goal.

Thirdly, it must be a clean wage without hidden perks. In this way, the actual wages of those in political office will be simple and transparent. One gains happiness from doing good, and gains freedom and ease when one uses wisdom to follow good advice. By doing away with the pension scheme, those in political office will use CPF funds for retirement, just like ordinary Singaporeans.

Page: 952

Next, on the implementation of a National Bonus, which is linked to GDP growth, growth in the median real wages of Singaporeans, real wage growth of the bottom 20% of Singaporeans and unemployment rate. This adjustment takes into consideration the interests of Singaporeans from all walks of life.

Let us take a look at the world around us. The salaries of politicians in many countries do not reflect their actual income. In Italy, their sovereign debt has hit 1.9 trillion euros, and according to their MP salary committee report, their Members of Parliament are paid a basic salary of S$19,000, and enjoy many additional perks, like tax-free monthly living allowance of 3,503 euros, free flights, etc. There was an ancient Chinese saying: "A magistrate of a prefecture could accumulate a fortune of at least 10,000 taels of silver in three years." Low-ranking officials are able to ''earn'' such a fortune not because of their pay but because of their many corrupt practices. This situation is common in many countries.

The amount of salary is not the primary consideration – and it is hard to benchmark the pay – nor the only objective of talent selection. We have other stringent criteria for choosing talents. The salary can be taken as an appreciation or a reward for a job well done. Nevertheless, we should give recognition to the hardwork of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries, because these recommendations have incorporated the expectations of Singaporeans from all walks of life, and will be the cornerstone for the long-term development and prosperity of Singapore in future. It is not a policy to serve the ruling PAP, but one that serves the long-term interests of our nation as a whole, and puts in place a code of conduct that is stable, fair, transparent, reliable and highly efficient for Singapore's political system. With this comprehensive Ministerial pay system that is basically acceptable to the public, the eventual winners are all Singaporeans.

( In English ): Sir, I will continue my speech in English. Human resource is Singapore's greatest and only resource. We are an open economy and we face immense challenges. Therefore, it is important that we have the talent to help us lead the nation to stay ahead. We have had relative success doing so through innovative policies and schemes, some of which have no precedents in the world. Our history and track record speak for themselves.

The independent Committee has done its best to collate feedback from Singaporeans from all walks of life. It has consulted, studied and taken into consideration the feedback from workers, professionals and politicians from both Ruling and Opposition parties. Hence, the report is comprehensive and representative of views from a wide spectrum of Singaporeans. I would recommend that its findings and recommendations be respected and supported.

Everyone's line of reasoning has its valid points. However, with everyone having his own perspective and opinion, it is difficult to satisfy all. Allow me at this point to share the well-known Aesop fable of "The miller, his son and their donkey" to highlight the difficulties a community faces in agreeing on a course of action. A miller and his son were on their way to town to sell their donkey. They had not gone far when they passed a group of girls who suggested that one of them rode it. The father then put his son on the animal. After travelling some distance, they went past some old men who criticised the boy for making his elderly father walk. So the boy dismounted and the miller got on the donkey instead. Soon after, a group of women berated the miller for making his young son walk while he rode on the donkey. So the miller put his son up onto the saddle and they rode on happily until they met another group of travellers who scolded them for over-burdening the poor animal. "You should carry the poor animal instead," they suggested. The miller and his son got off the donkey, tied its legs together, turned it over on its back and carried it. Soon, a crowd gathered to watch the strange sight. As they were crossing a bridge, the poor animal became frightened at the chatter and noise made by the crowd. It panicked, broke loose, fell into the river and drowned. The classic story is a cautionary. It is important to listen to feedback and suggestions but it is even more important that implementation be carried out wisely in a way suitable to one's circumstances.

Page: 953

The principles and spirit behind the report are sound. The wishes of Singaporeans, the sacrifices to be made by potential office holders, the indicators to reflect total employment and real income growth of the lowest 20th percentile of Singaporeans have all been taken into consideration. I agree that monetary reward should not be the only prime consideration for people who come forward to serve. However, I do get feedback from colleagues, friends and residents that capable people may prefer to stay on in their existing well-paying jobs while continuing to contribute to and serve the nation in many, many other ways. Some Singaporeans may have specific capabilities and skill sets we need for running Singapore. Indeed, this is a job. Running a country is not a simple job. Our Ministers have a great responsibility to shoulder. They are accountable for our continued prosperity, social harmony and unity – qualities which are envied by many, many in this world.

We need to stay focused now especially in the face of economic uncertainty as a result of the European debt crisis and slowdown in the world's economy. Sir, in the past, we had overcome the Asian financial crisis, SARS and the US financial crisis. We need a strong team who can continue to work with us and lead us ahead. Mr Speaker, Sir, on this note, I end my speech by re-affirming my support for this motion.

4.12 pm

The Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mdm Halimah Yacob): ( In Malay ): [Please refer to Pg 999 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, the issue of salaries of political office holders has brought about widespread discussion among Singaporeans. I understand their concerns. Although the eight-man Committee has proposed that the salaries be reduced by about one-third, it is still difficult for the ordinary people to fathom the amount of pay obtained by the political office holders. The public also wanted to see a strong link between this group's pay and the Government's performance, in terms of how it contributes to improving the lives of the people, especially the low-income group.

In this regard, the Government has played an important role in providing social services for its people. Besides the major investments made in education, health and housing, social assistance schemes such as Workfare, ComCare and Medifund and study bursaries have also ensured that opportunities for advancement are available to everyone.

Page: 954

A study by the Ministry of Finance recently showed that social mobility, which is the ability of an individual to climb up or move down the social ladder compared to his own parents, was found to be satisfactory. It showed that Singaporean children from low-income families have good opportunities to secure better achievements. As education is the key to social mobility, the strong support from the Government towards early childhood development and providing education at all levels has brought results. Strenuous efforts have also been made to improve and upgrade the skills of lower skilled workers so that this group of people will be able to do jobs that require higher and more productive skills, and subsequently help them to generate a much higher income.

I hope, Mr Speaker, that when we discuss this issue, we will look at it in the proper context. We need to link this salary system to the Government's performance, especially in the effort to assist those who are less well-off. In fact, the Government has also enhanced support to the middle classes. As the proverb goes: the political leadership that fights for the people is like a big piece of wood in the middle of the field that provides protection from the sun and shelter from the rain.

Finally, Mr Speaker, there is no difference, I feel, between the proposals of the Workers' Party and our views in that leaders should possess humility, put the people's interests first and have a strong desire to serve. The weakness in the Workers' Party's opinion and the difference compared to our view is that the Workers' Party feels that by paying competitive salaries, the attitudes of the political office holders will change whereby they would immediately no longer possess humility, responsibility and will also work solely for the pay. I feel this is a wrong and unfounded view, and is not in line with the reality today or in the past. This is more so if we look at the amount proposed by the Workers' Party, which is almost similar and, in fact, higher than the Committee's recommendation.

( In English ): Sir, there is a Malay proverb which describes the virtue of a good and upright government and leadership as follows, and I quote: " Ibarat kayu besar di tengah padang, tempat bernaung kepanasan, tempat berlindung kehujanan ." What it means is that a good government is like a big piece of wood in the middle of a field, providing shelter from the sun and protection from the rain. I could not find a more apt description of what should be the role and function of a responsible government in taking care of the needs of its people. It encapsulates very nicely all that citizens expect from their government and the outcomes and deliverables that a good government leadership should strive for.

As a good government is only as good as the people that comprise it, this proverb also captures very nicely the kind of leaders that are fit to hold public office. They have to be selfless, above board and completely clean. They also have to be prepared to take all the punches and to cushion the impact of any adversity on their people, because as the piece of wood sheltering their people from the heat and the rain, they have to bear the consequences and carry the pain.

In the heat of this debate, Sir, I hope that we do not lose sight of this human angle that we are talking about individuals who have decided to come forward to serve and to put the interests of the people above their own, sometimes at a cost to themselves. My fear is that if we turn this debate into a mechanical discussion about dollars and cents, it will become much harder for us to attract good people as office bearers. Let me just take the example of Mr Tharman, our Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. He brought a lot of glory to Singapore when he became the first Asian to be appointed as the Chairman of the International Monetary and Financial Committee – a policy-steering committee of the IMF. This shows his calibre, quality and the amount of respect he commands in the IMF. We certainly want to attract more people of that calibre to hold office in the Government.

Page: 955

In debating this issue, Sir, I also urge you to look at the outcomes that we had achieved over the years and how this leadership had served the people. In just one generation, this Government had completely transformed Singapore. I used to frequently share with my residents about my "toilet" story. Do not worry. There is nothing, you know, inappropriate. It is all entirely appropriate. When I was young, for a number of years, I lived in a government quarters. There were about 15 families living together but there was only one communal toilet. There was no piped water in every home and we had a central kitchen for all the families to cook in. As we had only one toilet, there was a pecking order for the use of the toilet, especially early in the morning. First, the men would use the toilet because they had to go to work, followed by the children because they had to go to school and, finally, the women would do the washing and cleaning. I am really not sure what happened if anyone had weak bladders and jumped the queue, but I suppose that sometimes the back lanes did come in handy.

Today, our HDB homes have not one, but two toilets, and we are constantly improving our homes through the various upgrading programmes. Occasionally, we find ourselves in an awkward situation where we had to persuade residents to support the upgrading programmes, like what I had to do in a recent visit to a block that is due for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) in my area.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it was good and visionary political leadership totally dedicated to the service of the people that has brought us to where we are today. And we must continue to attract good people into political office so that our children and grandchildren, mine included, can continue to enjoy the same, if not a better life. We all know that no society can remain static, either we continue to progress upwards or we slide downwards and we need people with vision and dedication to bring us to the next lap.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is not a welfare state but we have to acknowledge that our Government has done much for the welfare of the people, without pinning that label on ourselves. The Government plays a major role in re-distribution to ensure fair opportunity for everyone. And as we move ahead, I can see that re-distribution role expanding. Other than heavy investments in education, healthcare and housing, we also have subsidies in the form of Workfare, ComCare, Medifund and educational bursaries, to name a few. I was also very happy to read about the Ministry of Finance's recent study which shows that social mobility, a subject close to my heart, is still very alive in Singapore. The study shows that children from poor Singaporean families stand a good chance of moving up in life. The son of a father in the bottom 20% of the income earners has at least two-thirds chance of breaking out of his low-income group. And he has a 10% chance of moving all the way up to the top 20% of income earners in Singapore.

Sir, as social mobility is closely related to educational achievement, strong Government efforts to uplift educational standards and help needy students have paid off. And we are not standing still. Like housing, healthcare and social assistance, education too has gone through a lot of changes, benefiting our people. And I welcome the recent announcements by the Minister for Education that it is looking at ways to help students study in private educational institutions pay for their education, as I know that parents of children who cannot get into the public universities really struggle to support their children. Again, such efforts require leaders in public service with vision and foresight as education is a long-term investment and we need to attract more of such people into public office.

Page: 956

Mr Speaker, Sir, the opposite of the proverb which I had cited, which is that good leaders and a good government is like the big piece of wood in the middle of the field that shelters its people from the sun and the rain, is another Malay proverb which cautions us to avoid at all costs leaders that, and I quote, " Harapkan baga, baga dan makan padi ". In English, this means that we placed our trust in the fence around the field to protect the padi but as it turned out, it was the fence that ended up eating the padi.

Many countries have gained independence at the same time as us but not all have seen much progress in the lives of their people. We can argue that it could be because of our geographical location or other reasons that have contributed to our progress. But the point remains that it was astute leadership and good governance that have brought us to where we are today. Pay, Mr Speaker, Sir, should never be the incentive to get people into political service but it should never become a disincentive either. Even in the social service sector, we have had to review the salary package as the sector was finding it extremely difficult to attract people to work in the sector. And we understand because social service workers do have families to take care of, they have to eat, they have to plan for the future, they have to plan for their retirement. Even social service workers do have to have their remuneration package reviewed time over time, and we had done so in the last few years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the most valuable assets that we have built over the years is the deep trust that the people have in our Government's leadership. In fact, I would say that this is a very important reason for our success. We had to brave many changes together but people were behind the Government because they had seen their lives improved. In the 2008 recession, the Singapore Government was the fastest compared to other countries in coming out with SPUR and Jobs Credit to help workers keep their jobs. That action alone had persuaded a number of companies in the electronics sector that I was working with at that time, to change their investment decisions. Instead of investing elsewhere, they were able to persuade their headquarters to invest in Singapore. I remember the envy of a Japanese MNC executive shaking his head miserably when I asked him about how his headquarters in Japan was faring and what support they were receiving from the government. He said that months after the crisis that hit the world, they were still discussing the measures to put in place.

Hence, I had watched this debate, Sir, over the last few weeks with mixed feelings and a fair amount of misgiving. On the one hand, it is really important that we have a public discussion of this issue so that people could express their views candidly. On the other hand, my biggest fear is that if this discussion is not managed properly, and if views are not expressed carefully, it could erode the trust that has been so painstakingly built over the years and this can only be detrimental to Singapore regardless of which party we belong to. Worse still, it will deter good people from entering politics regardless of the pay that is offered to them.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whatever benchmarks are used, it will still not be perfect and it will be subject to dispute and challenge as elitist and an attempt to monetise the value of political office. Although, on a latter point, my MP colleague, Mr Vikram Nair had gone in great length to raise this question as to how do we decide whether and why we should peg political pay to the salary of a civil servant and why should it be a multiple of five times, why not less and why not more. It is the same debate. The same questions that are asked even in relation to the benchmark set by the Committee could also be asked about this suggestion that it should be pegged to the salary of a civil servant. It could also be asked as to why this benchmark is more acceptable than the one recommended by the Committee. And would this benchmark not also attract the same criticism that it would monetise the value of political office? I think the same arguments will be applied, whatever benchmarks we use. However, I agree with Mr Nair that a more important point is that even by the benchmarks used by the Workers' Party, the quantum derived as the fair amount is very close and, in fact, higher than what the Committee had suggested.

Page: 957

Mr Speaker, Sir, as Ms Lydia Lim had remarked in her column from the Gallery in The Straits Times , despite differences, both sides agree on pay fundamentals. So, in conclusion, Sir, I hope that at the end of this debate, we can put aside our differences which, as I have mentioned, are not so different after all. We should try to reach a consensus on this issue so that we can then focus on the really important task of taking care of the welfare of our people.