CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISIONS

CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISIONS: Debate resumed.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Yio Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, after we have heard the story of Ah Lian

Column: 443

and Ah Hua, let me share a story of a small town. In 1988, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew went for a visit to Australia. At that time, I was a reporter in his delegation. During a dinner, he said that whenever he flew back from Australia to Singapore, he had two feelings in his heart. The first feeling was that although Singapore was faced with many problems, we were still successful. That was his satisfaction. The second feeling was that, if he was to come back to Australia and New Zealand 100 years later, he could be sure that Australia would still have a lot of cattle and a lot of people living comfortably on this land. But he could not be sure that this man-made land of Singapore would continue to exist in 100 years.

At that time, many people could not understand MM Lee's sentiments. And they asked me, "If MM Lee feels a sense of satisfaction, why did he express such a pessimistic view?" I was in my 30s and hence did not understand much and thought it was a statement of pessimism. So I replied, "Perhaps, it was because he cares for his country, and was concerned about the problems of the country above his personal problems." But looking back, I would call that political ideal "great wisdom". Such an enlightened leader with great wisdom is difficult to come by in 100 years or even 1,000 years.

In 1993, Lianhe Zaobao published the book "李光耀四十年政论选" - 40 years of speeches by Lee Kuan Yew. And I was involved in the editorial and publication process. In an interview with MM Lee, I asked him, "Looking back, what was your greatest satisfaction?" He said he could see Singapore doing well, operating well, everyone had their opportunity, and that gave him the greatest sense of satisfaction. I was in the early 40s and I could understand his sentiments and many

Column: 444

people began to say, "Will Singapore continue to have a leader like MM Lee, with such great wisdom to create a new world for Singapore?"

In my years as a journalist, I had the chance to accompany Ministers on their overseas visits. After becoming an MP, I also have the opportunity to accompany Ministers on official overseas trips. Therefore, I have realised the importance of having great wisdom in a small country. Many leaders of other countries highly respect Singapore although we are a small country. But when compared to them, we are as big as them, because of our great wisdom. In the face of globalisation, when we have great wisdom, even a small country will become a big country. Without wisdom, a big country will become a small country. So I would like to ask everybody whether they think that such great wisdom is invaluable. Do you think it can be measured by market salaries?

Mr Speaker, Sir, our country is small and we may seem to have nothing. But, in reality, we have everything. If we have no water, we will buy water. If they do not sell to us, we produce NEWater. If there is no sand, we will buy sand, and if they do not sell to us, we will release the sand reserves. So that is our strength. Our second generation leaders have this ability to look ahead. That is also what we meant by great wisdom.

But, yet, the salaries that our leaders are drawing are not ranked among the top 100. It is less than $5 million, which is lower than the salary of the CEO of SingTel, and also lower than the salaries of the CEO of financial banks. Is this reasonable? The crux of the matter is that the people do not object to the revision in Ministerial salaries. But what they ask is why do Ministers still need more salary when they have $1 million? And we cannot blame them for this confusion. As you know, when you talk about money, it

Column: 445

is always an emotive issue. The emotions will be affected because when you talk about money, much emotion will be aroused. But we understand that the citizens, through the media and discussions in the papers, would definitely pay attention to this matter. And so all of a sudden everyone is talking about money.

However, I do believe that if we pay attention and discuss it wisely, everyone will understand. And so I said to them: "The CEO of SingTel was probably still a student when MM was then Prime Minister. But now, he is drawing a salary of $5 million. Are you satisfied with this?" They said they are happy as long as they have auto roaming for the mobile phones. But did we consider what is it that made it possible for them to fly all over the world and roam everywhere? And the Singapore passport is something that we are so proud of. So all these policies are brought about by our Ministers, and if we were to raise their salaries slightly from $1 million, would they have any objections? Having said that, they understand where I am coming from and they are clear about my point.

So the people do understand that good quality is worth every cent. If you want a D24 durian, of course, you pay more. For lower quality durians, you pay less. And that applies to talents as well. But if we tell them that the benchmark of the Ministers' salaries is taken from six professions, and eight top-earners, they would definitely be confused. They are not able to comprehend what it is all about. So, in our debate, we should not be merely talking about money, instead we must raise the level of our discussion. We should raise the level of discussion to a rational one.

In the last few days of sittings, we have talked about rationality. So it is a rational debate. But some people believe, including the Chairman of the Worker's

Column: 446

Party, Ms Sylvia Lim, that all this debate is a waste of time. But through this debate, many citizens are clearer of how much the MPs, Ministers and CEOs are getting, so there is no big deal.

The views on this matter may vary but, overall, the debate has brought about consensus that there should be transparency. Ministers should not feel guilty about getting high salaries. If they have the substance, they deserve to be paid well. But I want to point out that, in this debate, we have heard the view that we use high salary to promote honesty. In fact, we have risen from a third-world country to a first-world country. So our high salary policy is not just to promote honesty. With talent being scarce nowadays, they are mobile and can move anywhere, thus our high salaries are to attract more talent, and not to promote honesty. And the whole world recognises that such people deserve high salaries. Furthermore, all governments and large corporations are searching for talents globally. As the saying goes, it is easy to have a big army, but difficult to find a good general. And if you have a good general, you cannot be sure he will stay.

A good example would be the CEO of Sentosa Corporation. I remember that when we visited Sentosa last year, the CEO shared with us his big plans for Sentosa, and he informed us that the number of tourists visiting Sentosa has increased tremendously. But shortly after, it was reported in the papers that he has been poached by a rival company in the Middle East. This is a good example where our talent has gone to another country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, not only must we look at it rationally, we must raise our level of discussion to a rational level so that we can see a new world. Just like what MM has envisaged, how can Singapore create and establish a new

Column: 447

world? So where is our new world? I think it is throughout the global market. In fact, we are living in a new era. And so we must have a global vision. At the same time, we must not forget to look back because only then we realise that we do not have anything to fall back on, and so we must depend on ourselves.

Earlier on, Mr Low Thia Khiang wanted to compare Singapore with Switzerland and other countries, but every country has its own problems. So how do we compare? Every household will have its own set of problems and likewise for the country. So it is difficult to compare. We need to maintain a balance between different forces, and we must reconcile certain inconsistencies and analysis. At the same time, we must establish foreign relations with many countries. And whilst being influential, we have to project and safeguard the interest of our country. This requires great political wisdom and not just plain wit.

In this debate, we must let more Singaporeans understand our vision of a new world, and that is the whole world. Our talents are all over the world. And the challenge for us is to attract these talents, until our third generation leaders have developed the third generation wisdom. So, on the question of salary revision for Ministers, the people’s concern is not how much the salary increment is, but rather they are concerned whether the Ministers are people-oriented and can look after the people. In fact, it is everybody’s dream that we have a good place to live and work in. And, now, our expectations are further raised. Besides having a good place to live in, we want to be able to travel the world.

As what Mr Ong Ah Heng said yesterday, he hopes that the Ministers will not forget the people after the salary revision. Also, he said that the Ministers

Column: 448

will remember us. In fact, many low-income workers have said that they are okay with the salary increment, but please make sure that their medical fees will not go up and that the prices of things will not keep going up. So I think they share the same sentiments.

Sir, in the 2000 debate, I supported this motion but I also reminded the Ministers that we should look after the welfare of the workers in our society. Without these workers, we cannot achieve what we have today. Therefore, I would like to urge that the Ministers will look after all the people, and the whole population will appreciate the sacrifices the Ministers have made for them.