CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISIONS

CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISIONS: Resumption of Debate on Question [9th April 2007],

"That the Civil Service Salary Revisions be considered by Parliament.". - [Minister for Defence].

Question again proposed.

2.18 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to start my speech in Malay.

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, paying a reasonable remuneration to our civil servants and our appointment holders is an important principle to ensure that the Government is able to uphold its integrity and attract the best talent to compete in a globalised environment. However, there are a few perspectives in this issue. Many have already been said by my fellow MPs. Therefore, I will not go through them in detail.

*Cols. 535-538.

Column: 400

For junior officers, whereby there are 60,000 of them, I fully agree that their salaries have to be competitive, for example, a graduate who has just joined the service for a specialised post like an accountant, and even teachers who form a sizeable component in the civil service. I believe our people deserve the best service from the frontline staff up to the senior officers, be it in administration, policy or education. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is important for us to revise their salaries so that they are as competitive as what are being offered in the market because the number of resignations at this level will be higher if the salary is less attractive.

At other levels, like officers in the elite group, ie, scholars in the Administrative Service, Permanent Secretaries and office-holders, their salaries are benchmarked against the elite group in the private sector, that is, a small upper-class group in the industry. It is a substantial salary scale, one which an ordinary man like us finds it hard to accept.

I work in the private sector where our salary is pegged to risk, reward and profit. It depends on factors, such as effective cost management, fully optimising the limited human resource and financial capital. Because of this, the issue of civil service pay raises various discussions and matters on what would be a reasonable amount.

This raises a question: should those who serve for the people not have the heart to serve and a big pay cheque should not be their ultimate mission? Then another point at issue is whether certain Ministers deserve to be paid at a benchmark comparable to the private sector had they joined the private sector based on their qualifications.

Let us put these issues in the right perspective. Since 1819, Singapore's survival was based on its role as a

Column: 401

business hub. We did not have rich resources like many other countries which are able to handle any changes in a global economy. As emphasised by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, we should view this from our regional context. Our economic stability cannot be too dependent on our neighbours. We are not like Europe or Asian countries like Hong Kong which has an intensive economic policy and is also driven by stability and development in the region. However, the challenge for the Singapore Government is to ensure that our economy is working smoothly to enable us to generate social programmes, like education and healthcare.

Duties and responsibilities of office-holders and civil servants are not straightforward. Not only expectations from the people are high, but there is also competition from our neighbours and we must always remain ahead.

Political leaders and civil servants have paramount duties to place Singapore on the world trading map. Without them, we will not have a healthy economy, what more to have social programmes or job opportunities.

Recently, I joined PM's delegation to Japan. In a dialogue session with the Japanese leaders and well-known figures from their corporate world, I kept asking myself why would a country as big as Japan be willing to spend time discussing and have dealings with us. Our trade is far much smaller, as compared to theirs. Our contribution to their economy is also not that substantial. However, there is a value that our Government and leaders possess that cannot be found elsewhere. That is our value-add. With our small trade contribution, it is hard for us to get a special treatment. But Singapore is still the favourite of international companies and is still attractive to investors from other countries.

Column: 402

This shows that our Government has done an excellent job to compete in the economy, despite our small size and limited resources. We need leaders with calibre, like professionals and entrepreneurs from the industries, and we have to pay them reasonably. We need leaders who can translate vision into reality, understand how the economy moves, know how to deal with the industry and, at the same time, serve the people.

Let us look for the best in the industry because the situation and the challenges faced by Singapore are becoming more challenging. Competition to acquire talent will be more acute and there is a risk to it. Therefore, we should go back to the main issue. Did we benchmark correctly in setting the salary scale? Would it not be better if a committee or a panel study the appropriate salaries for the civil servants and Ministers?

In my opinion, the principle is right. The question is not on what is the appropriate rate, but the basis on how we benchmark and what are the comparable risks and rewards when compared to the private sector. I am of the opinion that we should have a more conformable benchmark, and not only focus on the top corporate earners. Similarly, with the performance benchmark expected of our civil service.

I am convinced that we need the best talent in the Government. But I am also convinced that we need Ministers with the heart to serve and not be doing it for the monetary reward.

Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in English.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I would like to commend the Prime Minister and the Cabinet for raising the issue of

Column: 403

salaries for public scrutiny. This is indeed the hallmark of a transparent and open Government that will make tough decisions even at a political price.

I agree with the principle of the civil service salary scale of a finite quantum and away from perks, and one with all the cards laid on the table - a package that dispenses with perks, particularly those that do not benefit the community directly and those that are not visible.

If we had not been transparent, our situation could have gone otherwise. There are many examples of other governments out there, but let me pick one that was very recent. The BBC recently reported that the Jakarta Parliament voted to pass new laws to reward government officials with free burial plots in the city. Plots at the front, with easy access to the roads, command the highest prices, and people have had to queue for years to get suitable plots for burial. But the law will ensure that these sought-after spaces will be allocated to government officials and veterans.

Sir, I have no idea what burial plots have to do with attracting the best of talents, nor how will it benefit the larger segments of society. Therefore, I think we have to take the fact and appreciate that all we are debating and arguing upon is that finite sum and what is on the table to be discussed.

Sir, I am realistic that in this current environment, we should pay the right price for that finite quantum for the right talent. I fully support this principle. We have to do what is necessary to ensure that Singapore can attract and retain capable people to make up the Cabinet and its civil service. It has been 13 years since we first debated on the issue, and yet we are still debating over it now. Is it

Column: 404

just politics of envy? Did we not get the benchmarks right? Have Singaporeans not recognised the value-add the civil service has brought directly to their lives over the past 13 years? Or, perhaps, we have just taken our security blanket for granted, think that we have arrived and have a false sense of security on how vulnerable we are in this global economy.

By paying top dollars to retain the civil service elite, I hope that we are not sending the message that there are people out there who are indispensable, especially with the intention we place to be protected for life. On the other hand, have we also considered that, perhaps, the Government has priced itself out of the market? How many Permanent Secretaries have we lost? How many Administrative Officers have we lost, where the reason cited is the lack of pay? Is that a good thing for Singapore if the young leadership of our civil service is not challenged enough? Perhaps, as Ms Phua has also alluded to, a stint in the private sector would do them and our economy good. And if they have the heart to return to serve the public, then I think we have the right people in place.

One question I have is the assumption that good leadership and visionaries can only consist of the most intellectual and that money can attract them to serve the people of Singapore. If we cannot find 25 good men and women to serve as Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, and perhaps another 25 more for the next generation, out of our population of about five million, then, I say, politics begets politics. What values have our policies inculcated in our society, because you will not be poor - in fact, sufficiently well-to-do - as a Minister or Permanent Secretary, but surely you can sacrifice being super-rich?

But I am willing to go with greater emphasis and transparency on performance. I welcome the Defence

Column: 405

Minister’s Statement that the Government can improve its performance measures. However, though the idea of specific KPIs are not new, I do not see why these cannot be implemented in the short term. The balanced scorecards and performance report cards of the various agencies and senior officials can contain various views - long-term, short-term, mid-term. We can still keep the traditional KPIs. But we can surely include some short-term KPIs relevant to Singapore’s current needs, such as to lower unemployment, raise skill levels or improve healthcare or welfare service delivery.

Measurements, I believe, drive behaviour. But the Government should also make these transparent so that the public can decide at the end of the day if they have been well-served, and let the civil service calibrate its efforts each year against its performance. I think that the issue on the salary is partly due to public perception of the value they are getting out of their taxpayers' dollars for the administration of the country. I think the word on top of many people's mind is 'value-add'.

Singapore's transformation from here on is not likely to be in leaps and bounds, as in Minister Mentor's Cabinet, which had taken us from Third World to First. The issues today are complex and, therefore, it is more relevant than ever to have deeper and transparent KPIs that we can show direct value to the community. This, I think, will benefit all parties, especially the PAP, at the polls every five years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I subscribe to the view that our political leaders have to be more than just managers of our livelihoods, our economy and our future, as pointed out by my parliamentary colleagues before me. I fear this huge salary adjustment may erode the respect for our leaders and the honour and

Column: 406

prestige of being a Minister or a top civil servant. I cannot help but wonder: by making it too comfortable for our leaders - political and civil service officers - will we erode our work ethic, heart for servitude and compassion for our people, much the same way we fear that increasing financial assistance for the poor will erode the work ethics of the working population? Think - how many lives and livelihoods are at stake, if our policy-makers become too comfortable and disconnected from the realities of ordinary Singaporeans?

Perhaps, I am an idealist, maybe naive as a first-term MP. I stand on the other side of the scale from "Old Swee Say" at 32, not 52. I am an idealist, but perhaps that is why I stepped forward, not because of the $11,900 then or the $13,200 now. This post-65 idealist would like to see leaders coming forward with a heart to serve, honestly and compassionately, leaders who will put aside their personal interests for the interests of Singapore, and not just chase their performance bonuses.

Sir, I would now like to move on to a slightly different topic - on MPs.

Recently, two articles were published by Indonesia Pos on 1st April 2007 entitled: "MPs Work Overtime to Meet Residents", and by Republika on 4th April 2007 entitled "Ways People meet with their Representatives" in Singapore. The reports were based on a group of Indonesian reporters who visited Singapore and attended one of the MPS sessions by Mr Hawazi Daipi to understand the value our MPs directly bring to the population. I think that it is good, based on these reports, that even our neighbours regard our Ministers and Members of Parliament highly for the good work theyput in in direct delivery to our residents and having compassion for our people. And it is indeed commendable that we are constantly acknowledged as

Column: 407

being clean and honest. But I would just like to refer to two points in the articles that got my attention.

The first is from Indonesia Pos : "If democracy is taken to mean freedom to demonstrate, such a form of democracy does not exist in Singapore. But if it is a system of Government of the people, by the people and for the people, the city state practises it every Tuesday night". That is just because Mr Hawazi's MPS is on Tuesday nights. But I think we practise it every other night.

The second is from Republika : "It is important to note however that any assistance given to the people is not in the form of money, and hence is not a form of "money politics", including during periods close to the elections."

I think this somehow brings the whole salary issue back into perspective, that there is a price tag, be it MPs' allowances or even Ministers' salaries, for a Government and a Parliament that are clean and honest and have the interest of the people at heart, and that this system must continue to attract top quality people who believe in serving the greater good of Singaporeans.

Sir, if there was one aspect of the Minister's Statement that concerns underpayment - I know that words like "underpayment", "underpaid" and "not enough" seem to be rare in this debate - it would be the administrative costs to support the MPs, ie, the LA and SA allowances, to give MPs greater support to serve the people better. We have seen how the MPs are already well-regarded out there and we also know that demands on the MPs to support the public are different from the political office-holders who have the Ministries' backing. Compared to the support that is given in countries such as the UK,

Column: 408

Australia, or even many other countries out there, the current administrative support given is a bit too low. Who can we get to effectively assist the administration with such an allowance, ie, $1,300 for a legal assistant and $500 for a secretarial assistant? I think most of my parliamentary colleagues would appreciate greater support, since the MP's job is truly a full-time one. For example, in countries such as the UK, the maximum entitlement to staffing allowance per member is about the same as the MP's allowance. This is designed to pay for between two and three full-time equivalent staff. I would be willing to settle for a decent wage for two full-time administrative staff. I am not even asking for a benchmark for top secretarial salaries.

This salary issue is certainly a delicate one, not just one that raises questions on our value system as a Government, but also questions the incremental value-add our citizens will expect, as more taxpayers' dollars are being put into the salaries of civil servants. Perhaps, this idealist - and I think there are many more out there from my generation - looks for more than just intelligence and calibre in our leaders. Even with a financially-rewarding civil service, I hope that we can continue to get leaders with a heart to serve, a Government that can drive the heartbeat of the economy, and a leadership that can win the hearts of the people.

Sir, I support the motion.

2.41 pm

Prof. Thio Li-ann (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to speak in this debate.

The arguments raised by Members of this House over the past two days have reminded me of the words from a Beatles song that goes: "The best things in life

Column: 409

are free, but you can give them to the birds and bees, I want money. That is what I want." These lyrics, courtesy of Lennon and McCartney, starkly capture the two competing paradigms which have driven this debate over salary revisions for political office-holders and civil servants.

Firstly, we have the argument from the perspective of the market. Secondly, the argument from the imperative that public servants must possess moral authority, which might be undermined by the perception that they are receiving salaries pegged at too high a level. The problem is identified as the need to attract and retain the best talents to helm positions of political leadership and to staff the elite Administrative Service. The method adopted is to pay top dollar for the best and brightest. Of course, the salary revisions have a broader reach and also affect the administrative rank-and-file and teachers. I applaud the measures taken to recognise and reward them for their significant contributions to society.

My remarks today are primarily directed to the issue of salary revisions in relation to Cabinet Ministers and top civil servants of Superscale grade, as this has been the focal point of public interest and debate amongst our citizens, netizens, denizens and other interested observers of our small island. Both the Cabinet and the Administrative Service bear the onerous task of crafting and implementing sound, far-sighted national policies on which our national welfare depends. Diligent effort and wisdom are obviously required.

Let me say from the outset that it is a given that our leaders and those who execute their policies should be paid well. This is a safeguard against corruption. A corruption-free government is foundational to the well-being of a nation. The difficulty is to find the right criteria and mechanism for determining just remuneration and reward. I agree

Column: 410

that Ministers and top civil servants should not be expected to make "unreasonable financial sacrifices" to be in public service. The devil is in the details - how is this quantified?

Hon. Members have voiced reservations questioning whether pegging salaries to the top earners in six private-sector professions is the best approach. Does it achieve the desired end? Does it communicate the right message? Are public and private-sector jobs comparable? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill, as the revised annual wage bills would constitute just 0.022% of the total economic output?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now turn to the market argument. The logic of the market perspective is the need to be competitive so that top talents can be attracted to serve the Government. This would facilitate the political renewal of the incumbent Government and ruling political Party. The chosen measure is to benchmark public-sector salaries against top private-sector salaries to position the Government to compete for the same or overlapping pool of talents by closing the salary gap.

The dominant motif of this camp is to be realistic and its chief tool is that of financial incentives or market-based wages. This rejects as flawed the conventional wisdom that Ministers should only be paid a modest wage because they do public service. The new orthodoxy is the need to pay Ministers well to ensure a constant supply of good governors who would perpetuate good government and high economic growth. It posits that just as a CEO determines the profitability of a company, so too a country's economic well-being is contingent on high ministerial calibre.

The analogy between a company and a country is imperfect. What serves the corporate world well does not necessarily translate into what will serve good government well. Although our country

Column: 411

has been described as Singapore Inc. and Hotel Singapore, it is more than that - it is our home. A home evokes affection because it carries intangible qualities of warmth, security, space, which a hotel, no matter how luxurious, can never fully possess.

Sir, I now move to the second paradigm of the moral leadership argument. The argument from moral authority seizes upon the idea of intangible virtues. It is motivated by the fear that the market-based wages model will attract the wrong people who are motivated primarily by money rather than a desire to serve the public. There is an expectation of some degree of altruism from governors. While this may be criticised as naive utopianism, the alternative, a cynicism and total capitulation to materialism, is itself tragic in sounding the death knell for the ideals we need to temper our selfish excesses.

The existing concern and perceptions that Ministers and top civil servants are being paid too much have been exacerbated by two things: one, the impending GST hikes and, two, the adequacy of public assistance for the most needy in our society, some of whom reportedly eat only one meal a day. This plugs into the existing unhappiness generated by the growing levels of income disparity in Singapore. A person earning about $2,000 a month may find it hard to grasp the need to increase the pay packets of "million dollar" Ministers who currently take home about $40,000 per month, or Elected MPs who receive almost $12,000 per month.

There is an emotional disconnect in this respect, particularly when the green-eyed monster of envy rears its head. The emotional disaffection can impair the

Column: 412

health of a representative democracy where MPs, as the people's representatives, are supposed to understand the struggles of the common man and to represent such concerns. Wealth can be a socially divisive factor, spawning discontent and alienation, particularly where the salaries of Government leaders are well above the national average.

Sir, the fact that this emotive topic is being freely debated in Parliament today shows that we value transparency, a facet of good governance which guards against corruption.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight another facet of good governance, which is accountability. This comprises two elements. First, the ability to measure whether an office-holder is performing well or badly in qualitative and quantitative terms. KPIs or other benchmarks are necessary to evaluate the Government's progress, or regress. This is relevant to how much Ministers and civil servants should be paid and a performance-based variability component to salaries may facilitate this.

Second, there needs to be a sanction for poor performance, as in the private sector, where poor performance could cost the loss of a job.

Some may argue that while Ministers and top civil servants enjoy the rewards of the private sector, they do not suffer such risks of the disciplining force of the market. This may not be entirely accurate in so far as assurances that the Administrative Service is no longer an iron rice bowl, as under-achievers may be asked to leave, is realised. It may be argued that political office-holders are accountable to the shareholders of Singapore Inc., to Singapore citizens, who can exercise the sanction of the ballot box through their votes every five years or so. If this is the case, then it may be said that Ministers do not enjoy guaranteed

Column: 413

long-term jobs, which is a risk associated with the nature of political office.

Elections are, however, a blunt tool for sanctioning under-performing political leaders. They are periodic rather than continuous checks. Voters may still support a Government as a whole even though it is concerned with a few errant or under-performing Ministers. To be frank, to say the electorate can judge the Government through elections is a bit of a fiction. The ultimate sanction provided by a system of parliamentary democracy is that the incumbent government can be replaced by an alternative government. For this to work, a sizeable parliamentary opposition is needed. The current one is Lilliputian in size, though not necessarily in heart.

The current political system favours the continuation of a dominant party state. Despite these sterling efforts of the hon. Members for Hougang and Potong Pasir and NCMP, Ms Sylvia Lim, I do not think we will see a functioning bipartisan system anywhere in the short to medium term. This may be cause for rejoicing or mourning, depending on your political affiliations. However, this means that the task of holding under-performing or incompetent Ministers accountable falls on the Prime Minister and the internal self-regulatory mechanisms of the ruling political party. This may not always be effective or transparent enough to allay public concerns.

In terms of accountability, the question that may be asked is: how can you write your own salary without an external auditor? In this respect, I commend the proposals of various hon. Members to have an independent panel to review the issue of benchmarking salaries. This would promote accountability and, in involving non-Government sectors of society, could inject a participatory element which strengthens democratic governance. To further promote

Column: 414

transparency, the Government could widely disseminate how the performance of each individual Ministry is evaluated.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise a question whether the wrong message is being sent to my generation, the post-1965 generation, in conceptualising reward and structuring incentive in primarily monetary terms. Are we not sending the wrong message in assuming that throwing money after a problem will solve it? In conveying an overwhelming market-oriented ethos, are we not discounting intangible values which are essential for nation building? The underlying ideology of profit maximisation which can breed a fixation on self-interest stands at odds with attributes of selflessness and dedication to the common good. Ms Denise Phua cautioned against the volatile mix of power and excessive emphasis on materialism yesterday. I concur entirely with her sentiments. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton famously opined; wedded to a lust for lucre, the danger to the common weal increases exponentially. Corrupt governors wielding the coercive power of the state can wreak havoc on the body politic.

When it comes to our political leaders, surely, what Singaporeans want are men and women of character and vision to steer the ship. One is willing to follow where one is inspired and leaders must lead by example through sacrifice and service. For better or worse, our leaders influence us and shape our common destiny.

Sir, my generation, the post-65s, are the beneficiaries of the wisdom and foresight of our forefathers which have raised Singapore from the Third to First-World status. This is a remarkable achievement which second and third generation leaders have consolidated. No country is perfect, but Singaporeans are grateful for the peace and prosperity we

Column: 415

have enjoyed and hope to keep enjoying. We are not oblivious to the challenges that continue to face the Government and people of our country.

Yes, we need talented leaders to lead us into our collective future. In addition, we need a people who have a vision of what it means to be a Singaporean. What is 'Singapore'? We are not just a company, we are a nation. But we need a vision of what this means because without a vision, the people perish, they cannot gel together, they become selfish, cynical, alienated atomistic individuals preoccupied with their own concerns.

Our founding fathers had such a vision. On 9th August 1965, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew issued the Proclamation of Singapore's independence on behalf of the people and Government of Singapore. This stated that "Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society." These are worthy ideals we should constantly revisit. These ideals are foundational to our constitutional order which can inspire in us a sense of national pride and identity.

The Minister Mentor had a vision. First, it was for a Malaysian Malaysia, rather than one where the constitution entrenched unequal rights on the basis of race. When we seceded from the Federation, the vision for Singapore was that of a multi-racial democratic society where meritocracy was key to social mobility and indeed social stability.

I recall a conversation I had with our first Chief Minister, David Marshall, shortly after he returned to Singapore from his ambassadorship in Paris. He always spoke of the need to have " chilli

Column: 416

padi in our veins." His passion and his wit were invigorating as was his patriotism. Ever the idealist, he nevertheless acknowledged the central role of the Minister Mentor in spearheading Singapore's tremendous economic success through policies based on hard-headed economic rationality and the will to push through unpopular policies which were later vindicated.

We are the beneficiaries of the successful execution of this vision of our forefathers. Their sacrifice and foresight are inspiring and worthy of emulation. Minister Mentor himself gave up what would certainly have been a lucrative and distinguished legal career because of his vision and commitment to Singapore. The post-65 generation has enjoyed peace and affluence but we also face the uncertainties and insecurities wrought by globalisation, terrorism and other pressing concerns. For Singapore to be able to negotiate these 21st century challenges, it needs to be socially cohesive and resilient. This depends on the character and identity of its people and a common unifying vision for our nation which transcends the joint pursuit of material wealth. The intangibles count. Civic virtues like patriotism, honour, duty, a commitment to the common weal, may be difficult to quantify, but are as real as the wind we cannot see.

We need a vision for my generation which transcends instrumental objectives or which conceptualises things primarily or exclusively in pecuniary terms. It is sad to think that no good people will come forward to serve because 'money no enough'. But, Sir, we are not merely atomistic, profit-maximising individuals, evaluating opportunity costs and benefits. The call to service is a noble one. Therefore, in tandem with a generous pay package, job satisfaction and other intangibles should motivate future Ministers and top administrators. There is more to life than seeing things through

Column: 417

the dominant lens of money and human resource management. Virtues, like loyalty, sacrifice, perseverance, sustain hope that a nation will endure and become great.

We do not do things merely because of financial reward. I think of my father who represented Singapore as a swimmer and water polo player for 12 years, including at the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne. As a university student and later a practising engineer, he trained everyday in preparation, paid for his own expenses, food and even swimming trunks. He never received a cent. He never got a bonus when he won anything. In material terms, all he got was a medal and a jacket with the Singapore crest for his efforts. This sufficed for him. In non-material terms, he speaks to me of the tremendous joy in winning, the honour of representing Singapore and the fellowship of his team-mates.

Perhaps, I have been influenced by my father. When I graduated from Oxford, I was offered a teaching position at the NUS Law Faculty. The lure was the promise of a Masters scholarship which came attached with a three-year bond. At the end of the three years, I had a better understanding of what the job entailed. I felt that I had built something worthwhile. I could have joined, I suppose, a good law firm and practised corporate law. Perhaps, I might even have been in the running to become one of those persons against whom Ministerial salaries are benchmarked. But I chose to stay on as a university don. Indeed, for many years, my students frequently asked me when I was leaving for practice as, in fact, many of my colleagues had done. However, I found immense satisfaction (and irritation) in being an educator and scholar. There were other things which added value to my occupation which outweighed the material rewards of legal practice. One might think that a top

Column: 418

administrator at age 32, after completing her bond, may find similar satisfaction in her job scope, aside from pecuniary compensation, to motivate her to stay.

All the more so a Minister. The position of Minister is a position of high honour, great power, which is accompanied by great responsibility. A Minister may be able to command a greater salary in the private sector. However, as a Minister, he or she is uniquely positioned to build an enduring legacy - to solve healthcare woes, transportation problems, to keep the economy humming and thousands of Singaporeans employed, to sustain friendly relations with neighbouring states. It is a privilege to be able to build something of enduring worth in our lifetime.

Greatness is not measured in purely monetary terms. Otherwise, we would celebrate mercenaries, not patriots.

The market is a marvellous motivator, but it can lead to insularity, selfishness and the I-come-first mentality. My concern is that if we conceptualise the worth of our Government leaders in predominantly material or monetary terms, an over emphasis on market values may send the wrong message to my generation. After all, the worth of a person does not turn on how much he earns. One's sense of duty must perhaps coexist with other motives, but where does prudence end and avarice begin? When does the impulse to reward someone for a job well done cross the line and descend into the realm of greed?

I appreciate the need to pay Ministers well, but in devising an appropriate formula, there is a need to be vigilant in light of public unhappiness to strike a median between austerity and excessive prosperity.

Minister Lim Swee Say spoke of the need to have leaders with thinking heads, caring hearts and clean hands. To this recipe, I would add the quality of

Column: 419

sacrifice, of putting others first, a certain liberality of spirit that is manifested in sincerity, courage, generosity and service. We must take care and be conscious of the message being sent to Singaporeans through this revision exercise, as the underlying assumptions speak of how we value things. Do we value people instrumentally, primarily with what can be quantified? Or do we appreciate the intrinsic worth of things, which is essential to any society which cherishes the principle of human dignity and authentic community?

As our political leaders, we, the citizens of Singapore, are watching you and learning from your example. I hope that when the time comes, my generation will be ready, able and willing to receive the baton of leadership and to view this as a vocation, a calling, rather than a salaried job. It would be a sad indictment of my generation if no one came forward to serve without excessive monetary inducement, because, to be bereft of deep convictions is to be improverished indeed.

3.05 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last two days, Members have covered many aspects of this contentious issue of benchmarking Ministerial pay to the private sector at two-thirds of M48. The Member for Hougang has comprehensively stated the Workers' Party's position on this matter.

The gist of our position is that we should instead consider benchmarking based on the remuneration of political office holders in countries which tick. They generally favour a more moderate use of taxpayers' money for political salaries, and they do not seem to have run their countries aground.

Column: 420

Today, I would like to examine a few points raised by Minister Teo Chee Hean in his reply speech yesterday, and also to argue why the benchmark of two-thirds of M48 for political office will ultimately be against the national interest.

First, the point raised by the Minister yesterday. Mr Teo attempted to rebut the Member for Hougang's contention that this debate was a waste of taxpayers' money. He said instead that this was a hallmark of PAP's commitment to transparency. While I do agree that this is an opportunity to have a public airing, the debate arouses a feeling of deja vu , harking back to the other transparent debate about whether to have casinos in Singapore. This revision is presented to Parliament in the form of a Ministerial Statement under Standing Order where no vote will be taken. Not one thing said by any MP will change the decision of the Government. Personally, I would very much like to hear what each individual Minister feels about taking $2 million of taxpayers' money home each year, while fellow citizens struggle with the rising cost and taxes.

Secondly, Minister Teo mentioned that it was not right to look at how much political leaders elsewhere earn, because our Ministers cannot become Ministers in other countries. But the comparison is logical because we are comparing similar skill sets and responsibilities, funded by the public.

Looking instead at our benchmark of two-thirds of M48, how valid is it as a measure of a Minister's worth? Is it possible that, in fact, some of our Ministers are doing better in Cabinet than they would have done in their previous careers? Can we say that each and every Minister in Cabinet now would have become a top-earning banker, accountant, lawyer, engineer or CEO? We have all seen instances of civil servants and military personnel embark on second

Column: 421

careers in the private sector, and find the business world a whole new ball game and some, in fact, flounder.

Thirdly, the Minister attempted to show that Cabinet salaries were not in the rarefied zone of high flyers by plotting a graph of 1,000 residents and Malaysians. Even so, l,000 out of the resident workforce of about 1.9 million is less than 0.1%. To be in this group of 1,000 is already to be in a very privileged few and, as far as the public is concerned, is already in the rarefied zone.

For the remainder of my speech, I would like to argue why the two-thirds of M48 benchmark may ultimately be against the national interest. Economists have noted that globalisation increases income disparity. As such, the top earners' salaries will, in all likelihood, move up further in the future. A few years from now, two-thirds of M48 may require us to endorse each Cabinet Minister's pay for $3 million or $4 million annually. As these pay packets are funded from taxes, including poor people paying GST, how far is the Government prepared to go with this? Does it have a threshold of unconscionability?

Next, what makes a good Minister? There may be differences of opinion but, fundamentally, political leadership is a different creature from administration. To add value to policy making, the Minister must play the role of politician. He should understand the public sentiments and aspirations and be able to fund policies and explain things plainly to people. He must lead not just with the head but with heart. His ground feel of the need of the people and understanding of their plight distinguishes him from the professional civil servant who usually focuses more on efficiency and expediency in implementation. Indeed, to be effective, a Minister's EQ may be more important than for him to be part of a Mensa club. In fact, he would be better if he was wired

Column: 422

differently from the top civil servants, to reduce the mistakes perpetuated by groupthink.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew previously justified why it was not feasible to have foreign talent in the political leadership. He said that political leadership should "have passion, the commitment and share the same dreams as the people." I agree. The question is: how will two-thirds of M48 affect empathy, the ability of Ministers to share the same dreams as the people?

Ministers are currently drawing about $1.2 million annually, which divided by 12 will be about $100,000 a month. How does this compare with the average person?

According to a Report of the Labour Force in Singapore 2006, the median gross monthly income of someone in full-time employment is $2,170. In other words, an ordinary person takes a month to earn what a Minister earns in half a day. For university graduates, the median gross monthly income is about $4,450. This would take the Minister about one day to earn.

As we move salaries up to 88% of the benchmark, we will find that the average worker's monthly pay may be earned by a Minister in a matter of two or three hours. Does the Cabinet not feel a tinge of discomfort, drawing taxpayers' money at such rates? Can Ministers and Singaporeans share the same dream? Another reality is that our leaders may face problems in marshalling the people to make sacrifices for the country.

About four years ago, Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan told the House that his son had asked whether one should be prepared to die for Singapore. This sparked off a heated public debate. The cynics invariably linked this question to

Column: 423

Ministerial salaries. To quote a member of the public, and I paraphrase, "Who are we trying to kid? Before we start talking about dying for Singapore, let us look at our leaders. We are told that we cannot get good leaders unless we pay top dollar. So why expect more from the rest of us?"

Citizens should be able to look to leaders for moral leadership and inspiration. If what they perceive are mercenaries at the helm, then asking them to make sacrifices will be met with cynicism and indifference. This will not bode well for Singapore's future. What will happen when crunch time comes? Is this a time bomb planted for the future of Singapore?

Sir, if we are seriously unable to interest good people into public office, we must ask why other countries can do it and we cannot. Is it just the money or the fact that we have not invested in creating a culture of high public spiritedness?

In some countries, there are young people who aspire to hold public office. Senior Minister Goh had previously told Parliament that we could not expect Singaporeans to behave like people in other countries because we are a young nation, and people still see things in material terms. How sad! After 41 years of nationhood, National Service, and National Day Parades, what do we teach our children? Do we judge a person's worth by his salary? If so, we have wasted millions of tax dollars on these nation-building efforts, which have truly been in vain.

Public service must remain a noble undertaking for which people are prepared to make sacrifices in exchange for the benevolent power to improve the lives of

Column: 424

others. If we corrupt this by money, we can be efficient but never a country of high ideals. As such, I cannot agree with the Members who see political office as yet another career choice. It must be more than a job and the holder must be able to think of others besides himself.

In the popular American comic strip, "The Wizard of Id", there was a public address by the King to his subjects from the royal balcony. The King began, "Remember the golden rule". One of the subjects called back, "What's that?" Back came the royal reply, "Whoever has the gold makes the rules."

If the gold is indeed taxpayers' money, then Singapore is not that far from the Kingdom of Id. And it does not matter what transparency the Government has claimed in its attempt to justify the pay hike.

3.12 pm

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, we have been talking largely in terms of digits and formulas in this debate on salaries. People read the headlines screaming that Ministers' salaries will go up by 33% and they go, "wahh", and they read about how the Prime Minister's pay will go up to $3.1 million, and they go with an even bigger, "wahhh". They cannot grasp these mind-boggling figures.

But there is a human dimension involved in this debate and we must not lose sight of that. Behind these numbers are human beings with not only exceptional abilities but with exceptional life stories, which speak much of their character and the sacrifices they make to serve our people. Indeed, there are sacrifices made to join politics even after the proposed adjustment to salaries. People may forget but Cabinet Ministers take personal risk as well as pay a price as they toil to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Column: 425

To illustrate this, I would like to tell a tale of two Lims. These two Lims, who were trained to be naval architects, had promising careers before being called upon to join politics in their prime. They later became Cabinet Ministers. Both served in the labour movement as its Secretary-General. I would say that this is one of the most demanding jobs around, one of the most unglamorous but one of the most important. Ultimately, it is about jobs and securing a better life for our workers.

The first Lim is Lim Chee Onn. He left the civil service in 1977 to join politics and was assessed highly by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew for his high calibre. Two years later, he became Secretary-General of NTUC. In 1980, he was appointed Minister without portfolio when he was just 36 - a high flyer. In his years in NTUC, he helped to modernise the trade union movement, emphasising the need for workers to upgrade skills and increase productivity. Among other initiatives, he also inducted scholars and professionals into NTUC to provide planning and research back-up.

But his style led to problems with old-guard unionists and it was not an easy time for Mr Lim. He resigned from NTUC and the Cabinet in 1983 and joined the Backbench. In 1992, suffering from high blood pressure, which he told the PM about, Mr Lim left politics altogether to focus on his corporate work. Since then, he has been making news in the corporate sector, especially in his position as the CEO of Keppel Corporation. Among the latest is the news that Keppel Corporation paid him between $5.5 million and $5.75 million in 2005. This is an amount that not even the Prime Minister will earn.

The other Lim - in this tale of two "Lims" - is Lim Boon Heng. He left a high-flying career in Neptune Orient Lines to join politics in 1980. A year later in

Column: 426

1981, he joined NTUC, and rose to become its Secretary-General in 1993. He occupied the hottest seat in town during the recessions in 1998 and 2001 when he persuaded workers to take a CPF cut and wage cuts to turn the country around. It carried not inconsiderable political risk. It was a very unpopular move. He faced anger from unionists and abuse from workers.

But the bitter medicine worked and the economy recovered quickly. The unemployment rate fell. In good times, he pushed the tripartite partners for the CPF cut to be restored and for wage increases. Now, he is in charge of another difficult issue, which is our ageing population. But for many years in the labour movement, he has been worrying about jobs, low-wage workers, redesigning jobs, and flexible wage system so that workers can have jobs in difficult times. And we know that he leads by moral suasion which many people talked about. He leads by personal example. He lives a simple lifestyle. And I would say that if he succeeds in this task of taking care of our ageing population, we can all grow old a little more peacefully. But his pay today? A small fraction of Lim Chee Onn’s.

I tell this tale of the two Lims to highlight the rigorous demands of political office, especially as a leader in the labour movement, the risks involved, and the stark contrast between the reward systems for high-calibre people who remain in politics and for those who leave it. I do not believe Mr Lim Boon Heng or any of our Ministers would work less hard or be less committed or passionate about Singapore if their salaries remain as they are. But if we apply the principle that we in the labour movement and we in our own private sector lives have been fighting for - for ourselves and on behalf of our workers - pay our workers according to their abilities and performance, why should we adopt an opposing standard when it comes to

Column: 427

those who make it possible for us to enjoy a better standard of living year by year?

If we have a rigorous selection process to put the right high-calibre people in place, they will not be there for the money. They will be there for the right reasons – out of a sense of duty, public spiritedness. The opportunists and the greedy have no place and will have no place in this Government. We have that selection system right now under the PAP.

Among democracies, we are unique in that we do not see politicians jostling for positions or fighting for the spoils of office. We do not see Ministers undermining each other or feeding any leaks to the media about conspiracies or rifts in the political ranks, which is the normal state of affairs in countries such as the UK and US and also in this region. There are no political backroom dealings here. We do not see a long queue of people banging on the door to become Ministers or manoeuvring their way in. We do not see any Minister hankering to become the Prime Minister, however much he may be paid.

This is a clear sign that our Ministers are not there for the positions per se or the monetary rewards that may come with it. They are there out of a sense of duty and mission. But that is no reason for us to begrudge the office-holders their due reward, as a matter of principle. Far from it. Rather than quibble emotionally over their salaries and haggle as if we are at a pasar malam , we should rationally reward the Ministers appropriately, knowing that their job is very complex, demanding and often thankless. We should do so with peace of mind, knowing that if Singapore suffers from any crisis or calamity, when other countries are suffering, we are in good hands because

Column: 428

we have got the best to steer the ship to a safe harbour.

Detractors such as the Opposition tend to argue as if they are standing on higher moral ground. But a closer examination would reveal that, in fact, they are on a very slippery slope that would propel us all back into the Third World swamp that we were just a generation ago. Then, yes, the widening income gap will be a lesser problem because many of us will be wallowing in unemployment and many of our top people would have left the country for better shores.

We have an exceptional leadership which led Singapore into the rarefied league of the richest countries, with the fifth highest per capita income in the world. We are Asia's second richest country after Japan.
It is easy to forget that Singapore is an exceptional state, but it is. In his book, “Singapore’s Foreign Policy”, the late Michael Leifer from the London School of Economics, my former lecturer, noted how exceptional Singapore was in its achievements. As he sought to pigeonhole the small country in a category of states, he concluded that Singapore is best represented as sui generis - one of its kind, irrespective of its size. It does not fit the broad categories of small states and micro-states, or of "weak states" which has come to be the common label for small, vulnerable states. He noted that Singapore's exceptional standing and influence come mainly from its economic achievements, with its reputation for excellence.

This reputation for excellence was set by its leaders. Some have argued that, yes, the leaders played an important role in building up Singapore to what it is today, but so did the workers. Of course, the role of workers is also pivotal. They united behind the Government and we overcame challenges together. But let us look at it another way. If the workforce

Column: 429

does not have leaders who put in place skills training programmes and provide high quality education, with various productivity campaigns, will it transform to become the most productive in the world? If the workforce does not have leaders who go all out to woo foreign investors and give them the confidence to pour billions into Singapore, would our workers have the jobs and high quality of life they have today?

Let us take any country in this neighbourhood, say, Vietnam. Its workers are very hardworking, very hungry. I have visited the Vietnam-Singapore industrial park some years back. Some foreign investors tell me that the Vietnamese are more hardworking and more hungry than the Singaporean workers. They learn very quickly. To be fair, I do not think that man to man, the Vietnamese worker is inferior to the Singapore worker. Yet, as a whole, they are not enjoying anywhere near the standard of living that Singaporeans are enjoying here.

We need to ask ourselves, why is that so?

Some detractors couch this debate in terms of moral leadership. But what is immoral about paying people what they are worth - fairly? We are not talking about rewarding layabouts who have shown little passion for Singapore or produced lacklustre results. On the contrary, we have enjoyed the fruits of their labour, and, yes, also of their personal sacrifice.

Let me tell another story. It is about the Prime Minister, and I hope he will not mind this.

In my previous life - before I joined politics - as a senior political correspondent, I had interviewed PM Lee Hsien Loong, then DPM, when he was diagnosed with cancer. This was in 1992. Then, he was undergoing his 18-week course of chemotherapy. Before he

Column: 430

started his treatment, he had led an investment promotion mission to Japan after the doctors had finished with their tests. He was also Trade and Industry Minister, and wanted to meet leading Japanese businessmen to persuade them to invest here. He was also taking along with him Singapore businessmen to help open doors for them to do business with the Japanese. This was just after he was diagnosed, before his chemotherapy treatment.

I think if you ask anyone suffering from cancer, you would know that this is not regular work behaviour. This is extraordinary commitment. The stock market was jittery at the news of his cancer. To give people confidence and to protect Singapore’s interests, Mr Lee spoke to the media about his illness and how he was coping. He consented to be photographed. And I remember that vividly because I was there. He was bald, his face was puffy from the drugs, the tubes were sticking out from a dressing over his chest - the entry point for the drugs to be pumped into his veins. I do not think he allowed the media to interview him for his own sake or because he likes publicity. For sure, it is not. It is for public interest. It was to assure the public and investor that life and business in Singapore were going on as usual. I think if you talk to any cancer patient who is going through chemotherapy, his instinct is to "Please, let me recover quietly. Let me focus on my health." But PM was thinking of Singapore even in his time of need.

When the cancer went into remission five years later, he did not take time off to smell the roses. Instead, he took on the extra roles of Finance Minister and central bank chairman. And then, later, he took on what must be the most demanding and life-consuming job in Singapore, that of Prime Minister!

Sir, I have friends who are cancer survivors. Many said that surviving cancer

Column: 431

forced them to rethink their worldview and their priorities in life. Typical responses of cancer survivors are that they would want to go on adventures, climb a certain mountain, visit Great Wall of China, explore the world or live a more “balanced” life with less stress, spend more time with the family, be more religious, spend more time with the church or the temple. But, here, we have a man in the front row who, after surviving cancer, decided to continue to put first the priorities of Singapore and Singaporeans by taking on the most stressful job in Singapore, being its Prime Minister.

I think few would disagree that the PM’s job is extremely important to the country, if not the most important. His decisions affect our lives. He is the country’s Number One CEO, the chief strategist, the chief visionary, the chief spokesman for the country. But, in the real world, he is ranked presently 164th among income earners. After the revision, he will rank 102nd.

Now, Sylvia Lim said that we are signalling that we are measuring people according to their wealth with this salary revision, that we destroying the notion of sacrifice. But I would say that to rank your PM, the most important job in Singapore, at 102, to me, that is sacrifice. If you go by job worth, by the impact on people's lives, I think the PM's job will easily be in the top 10.

Sir, I cannot comprehend the argument that once you pay a person fairly, with a big discount, the person loses moral leadership to serve Singapore. I have no doubt that the PM is not asking for a salary increase for himself or for his Ministers to give them that carrot to serve. Our Ministers live simple lifestyles. It is to lay the right foundation for Singapore’s future. And to survive

Column: 432

and prosper, we need extraordinary leaders.

I am sure that the question that must be keeping the PM awake at nights is: will he be able to field a top-quality Cabinet for the next generation or two, and can he find one able and willing to be groomed to succeed him as PM? Events in the region have shown how political succession which has gone awry can wreak havoc and instability. Political feuding and infighting can become the order of the day. The Singapore leadership, on the other hand, from the Old Guard days, has distinguished itself in this region by its determined and meticulous approach to the problem of political succession. The smooth passing of the torch from the Old Guard to the second-generation team, and then the third, was the result of decades of careful planning and hard work.

Our problem, if we can call it that, is that we have a pragmatic and unsentimental approach to politics. This can be a strength but also a weakness. A strength because it keeps the people focused on national issues and challenges, which are perennial, and not on political personalities which come and go. This ensures a continuity and a resilience that go beyond personalities in government. But it can also be a weakness because it breeds in people a detachment from the political leaders and politics in general. They get only heated up if it affects their pocket in any way. They also tend to take for granted the work of the political leaders and dismiss their sacrifices.

Sir, it seems to me that this debate is not only a test of the quality and worth of the political leaders but also the quality of our electorate. Without a sound and wise electorate able to see the big picture and discern the true national interest at stake, there will be a steady erosion of people willing to take on the rigours of public office.

Column: 433

Some people make out the debate to be between realism and idealism, as if to pay our Ministers fairly is to give up the ideals of sacrifice and duty. In a related vein, some believe that the salary revisions will cause people to be cynical about politics. Does it follow then that, in countries where they pay their leaders low, and we have many in our neighbourhood, their leaders have high ideals and that their voters hold them in high regard, are idealistic and fan high hopes about their political system? Even in First World countries, with very active democracies, strong two-party systems, many analysts and journalists observe how voters have become increasingly cynical, to the extent that many are not turning up to vote, despite having many political parties to vote for. A reason for the voter cynicism is that they believe that their political leaders are not delivering and that things will not change.

Sir, Sylvia Lim also mentioned that we should benchmark the pay of our Ministers to the pay of the top leaders in other countries. Let us say it is interchangeable. Let us say George Bush is paid so much, and we think that that is a fair wage for a Prime Minister. Let us say we can hire George Bush. I think it will be fair for George Bush when he comes, to ask that his perks be matched as well - like, can there be an Air Force I jet for him? And I hope that the Opposition will lay aside a budget for that. And if you say that, "Oh! There are so many countries that have done very well. They have done very well on the World Competitive Report like Finland and they are paid so much lower than Singapore.

Let us see we can hire the Finland PM to come. His experience is in running a welfare state with high taxes. He will look at our system and say, "Oh, well, your income tax rate is so low." Their rate is about 50% to 60%, if you take the combined top marginal income tax rate. Besides the individual

Column: 434

income tax rate, they also have a municipal tax rate. So their combined top marginal income tax rate is about 60%. And their VAT (which is equivalent to our GST) is 22%. So if you want to compare the salaries of our Prime Minister and the Presidents of other countries as if they are equal, as if they are interchangeable, then bring along their system and tell our voters, "Okay, we have got the Finland PM and is willing to be paid so much, very low. But I am sorry he wants to raise our income tax to about 60% and our GST will go up by 22%." I think our voters, hopefully, will be wise and know where their national interests are.

Sir, listening to this debate, I often wonder what the top people in the private sector, those who have Ministerial potential and also a sense of duty, make of this public debate, their reaction to the salary revision. I will not be surprised if they draw this conclusion: They can keep their money. Life is too short. I will stick to the private sector and draw my better pay, my more luxurious life and not have my worth being haggled out in public. I think sometimes we under-estimate how difficult this debate is for our frontbench and for this Parliament. It is not easy for us to come before the people, but we know it is the right thing to do. And we hope that our electorate is wise.

Sir, I started my speech by saying that we should not lose sight of the human dimension in this debate. By this, I do not mean only the leaders, but also the people.

In the end, if we are not able to attract exceptional leaders who can ensure that Singapore continues to survive and prosper, it will be the people who suffer. And by that time, even if you want to pay the highest salaries possible for good government, it may well be too late.

Column: 435

3.35 pm

Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed to speak on the issue of revision of salaries of our Ministers and the civil service, I would like to speak on the salary of a very special group of professionals, that is, the engineers.

The median salaries of the top eight earners for six professions used to compute salary benchmarks for Ministers and Administrative Officers indicated that the earnings of Engineers are a far cry from the other professions. Before our young brains flock to study law and accountancy and shun engineering in universities and polytechnics, I would like to highlight the success stories of many engineering-trained CEOs. I believe a lot of you have seen this article in the Business Times a few days ago. Out of 55 top executives, at least I know that one-third of them are engineering-trained. And on top of the list, Mr Wong Ngit Liong from Venture Corp, his earning is $16.5 million in year 2005. I know that he is an electrical engineer by training. He is not the only engineering-trained CEO who earns multi-million dollars. Further down the list, we have Mr Foo Eng Hiong, Venture Corp; Mr Liew Mun Leong, CapitaLand; Mr Tan Choon Huat, Venture Corp; Mr Tan Kwi Kin, Semb Marine; Mr Tan Pheng Hock, ST Engineering; Mr Chew Choon Seng, Singapore Airlines; Mr David Lim, NOL; Mr Lee Hsien Yang, Singapore Telecoms; and Mr Koh Boon Hwee, though the name is not inside, and the list goes on and on. However, their salaries will most probably be reflected under MNC or local manufacturing among the six professions in the benchmark, not under "Engineers". Furthermore, I believe it is not just by sheer coincidence that more than 40% of our current Ministers and many more top civil servants are engineers by training too. This shows the flexibility of someone with an engineering

Column: 436

background. The engineering training enables them to think sequentially and logically, anticipate problems, trouble shoot, and so forth. Hence, many engineers have done well and move up the corporate ladder. They are wanted to run the companies and also to engineer Singapore into the First World.

However, the present trend of the young and bright opting for more fashionable soft courses gives rise to concern that there will not be sufficient first-class minds with engineering background to continue with our progress and nation building. Perhaps, they were turned off by the remuneration of professional engineers. One way the Government could help is to assist professional engineers in showcasing their contributions through more media publicity, engage local professional engineers in all Government projects with decent fees and, more importantly, remove the jail term for professional engineers in the Building Act.

I did a quick check with my parliamentary colleagues who are from other professions like lawyers and doctors, and they told me that they do not have jail term specified in the Act governing their professions. In the long run, if our younger generation does not take up engineering, our country could be heading for disaster.

Similarly, if all our bright civil servants are drawn away by the private sector or, worse, by other countries which would not mind paying top dollars for our top civil servants, then I am really worried for the future of our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to continue my speech in Malay please.

( In Malay ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] The strength of a country does not solely depend on wealth from natural resources

*Cols. 539-540.

Column: 437

such as oil, timber, oil palm, sand or granite but, more importantly, the human capital. In Singapore, since the PAP Government started the policy of a clean and honest bureaucracy, many of us have become complacent because we have been living in a society that is transparent and free of corruption.

We have received many accolades and this causes the envy of other countries. The issue is whether we want to wipe out all these simply because of comments that senior Government officers have been overpaid. Secondly, what is the amount referred to as being overpaid?

I can depict it clearly when I was small, living in a society controlled by money, not merit. With money, laws could be changed such that low-cost houses allocated to the homeless were eventually owned by those already possessing a house and lands which were to be apportioned to farmers were eventually owned by landlords. Small shops had to make payouts to the gangsters who were protected by corrupt policemen and the government officers.

You may have heard stories of some countries where there were incidents of changing personal data found on the identity cards or passports, requests made to the police to closely guard their homes and court decisions which could be fixed through bribery.

Do we want to live in such a society? Who is actually more oppressed? Not the rich and famous, but ordinary citizens and the low income group, small businessmen and retirees.

( In Mandarin) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore, our Ministers pursue their work with pride and professionalism. They treasure their work

*Cols.539-540.

Column: 438

and win the respect of others. Also, look at our nurses, they are proud of their work. During the SARS period, they expressed passion for their work and were willing to sacrifice for our society. Why is that so? I do believe that this has to do with good leadership. The senior leadership has communicated the concept of commitment, quality and outstanding virtue, honesty and incorruptibility. I remember when I was young, sometimes I could not pay my school fees just because the policeman had come to my house and he would always have some reasons to take away the last few dollars that I had. Sometimes, it was because the dog in our house did not have a licence or that the bicycle in our house did not conform to the specifications. How terrible!

My next point is: what is the amount of salary that is considered enough? Last year, the salary of the CEO of DBS Bank was $7.5 million. The CEO of CapitaLand was paid $5.1 million and the CEO of StarHub, $3.5 million. This is a widely known fact. In comparison, our Ministers were only drawing $1.2 million which was very much lower. Of course, some people said the risks faced by the Ministers cannot be compared with the risks faced by the CEOs in the private sector. Let me quote a letter published in the Straits Times dated 28th March 2007. It was mentioned in the letter that the politicians in other countries enter politics as a scarecrow, but they leave the political arena as fat cows. In contrast, the Ministers in Singapore enter Parliament with black hair and leave Parliament with a full head of white hair. Our Ministers and civil servants spend endless hours, not knowing night or day, to analyse every piece of data to arrive at a decision. The risk they face is exceptionally high because their decision would affect the lives of four million people and perhaps it would even affect the survival of the little red dot. Furthermore, surrounding the little

Column: 439

red dot are many big brothers looking ferociously at Singapore. Under such circumstances, to make the correct decision is exceptionally difficult. But, without a single word of complaint, they proceed to do the job. For this reason, we must reward our leaders what they deserve. The purpose is really to recognise their important contributions to our country and not so much of preventing them from leaving for greener pastures in the private sector or in other countries. I believe that our Ministers have noble ideals when they enter the political arena.

Next, I move on to our civil servants. Like other paid employees, they receive a salary to support their families. I believe that we must pay market rate salaries to civil servants with outstanding performance. And we should only give to those who deserve it. Those with outstanding performance should receive market-based salaries. But for those whose performance does not reach a certain level, they should have their salaries reduced or even dismissed. This is what they do in the private sector.

*Cols.541-546.

Let me give an example. After the collapse of Nicoll Highway, many friends in the construction industry had expected the Government to introduce more measures to strengthen safety at construction sites. But some changes are not necessary. In the proposed amendment to the Building Control Act, there is a new provision. It states that for all high-rise buildings above 30 storeys, there should be a new category of geotechnical engineers to design and check the piling. Is this necessary? What is the relationship between the Nicoll Highway collapse and foundation of high-rise buildings? All along, the foundation of high-rise buildings has been designed by professional civil engineers and only

Column: 440

when they consider it necessary would they engage a geotechnical engineer to assist. With this new amendment, whether there is a need or not, the developer must employ a geotechnical engineer. It is not only a waste of money but also a waste of precious time. What is more, time is money.

Should the civil servant who introduced this amendment receive a salary increment? In this regard, I therefore recommend that we should have a system for salary increment which is linked to performance, and this system should be similar to the KPIs used by the private sector. However, please do not use the profit bottomline as a KPI, because I do not wish to see the Government departments becoming a profit centre and forget that their main role is to provide service to the people.

The civil service in Singapore is recognised as one of high efficiency and honesty. Transparency International, an organisation based in Berlin, has ranked Singapore fifth, as the country with the least corruption. We must work hard to protect our position, not for the honour but for the need to maintain an efficient economy. In a corrupt system, there are many resources which are wasted. We do not have to look far for examples. I remember a report in recent years, which pointed out that a neighbouring country has lost US$2 billion in two years due to corruption. This is not a small sum. If these resources, which were taken away by corrupt officials, had been well utilised, they could be used to strengthen infrastructure and raise the quality of public service. Furthermore, if a country is corrupt, its problems would get more and more deeply entangled and they would never recover. On the other hand, an honest system would attract investors to our country, because it is a stable and safe platform to allow them to inject their resources and these will reap tremendous economic benefits. According to IMF,

Column: 441

there is an article which states that corruption is equivalent to imposing huge tax burdens on foreign investors.

Next, I would like to tell you a story. In a particular city, there are many schools, some are elite schools, and some are ordinary schools while some are not as good as the others. Among them, there are two famous elite schools. And they were set up 40 years ago. Recently, these two elite schools have changed their board of directors, and they are able to do so because they are independent secondary schools. Let me talk about the first school. It is called Bee Wah Secondary School. The directors feel that since Bee Wah is already one of the top schools in Singapore, there is no need to look for the best principal and the best teachers to come to the school. Furthermore, if the teachers join the school, they should be committed and should sacrifice themselves in education. They should be the engineers of the human souls. Not only that, the board of directors decided that the salaries of the principal and teachers should be linked to the results of the lowest bottom 20% of the students. If they get more than 50 marks, the teachers would be paid $2,500 per month, ie, $50 for each mark. So if the students get 30 marks, the salary should be $1,500; if they get zero, their teachers should not be paid. Think about that. What would be the results? When Bee Wah Secondary School wants to recruit teachers, would they get good teachers to respond to them? Not only would they not get good teachers, even the existing teachers would spend all the resources to look after the weakest students. All the good students would go to other schools, because they had been neglected. So this resulted in the loss of talent and eventually Bee Wah Secondary School may have to close its doors.

On the other hand, the board of directors of Rui Lian Secondary School

*Cols. 547-552.

Column: 442

was very far-sighted. They said, "Although we are already one of the top schools in the city, there are many schools which are competing with us. We must ensure that we maintain our strength and stay on the leading edge. How do we maintain our leading edge?" The board of directors said, "We will look for the best principal and the best teachers to join our team.” Let us consider this point. Do you think it is easier for this school to recruit teachers? Certainly. Not only that, a lot of the good students from other schools would transfer to Rui Lian Secondary School. And, possibly, Rui Lian Secondary School may even have to enlarge its premises through land reclamation!

My question is, if you are thinking about a school for your children, which school would you send your children to? I think your answer would be the same as mine. Finally, let me quote a saying from Confucius: "If a person does not have long-term concerns, he would have short-term worries."

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.55 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

Column: 442

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: