MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1989 TO 31ST MARCH, 1990

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day].

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

1.37 pm

Head N -

The Chairman: Head N, Ministry of Finance, Amendment No. (1). As announced earlier, I will allow Members to debate the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement on Salary Revision for Political, Judicial and Related Appointments under this amendment under the subject of "Salaries of Civil Servants". I shall allow those Members who have submitted amendments for this subject to speak first, after which I shall throw open the debate to the Floor. I will suspend the guillotine time for this amendment.

Mr Bernard Chen (Pasir Panjang GRC): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head N of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100.

Sir, may I first congratulate the First Deputy Prime Minister for his stirring speech on the subject of pay increases for Ministers. Judging the emotion and feeling behind it, I get a clear feeling that it comes from the heart. Indeed, the question of pay increases for political office holders had arisen in 1985. On 22nd March 1985, in a wide-ranging debate in Parliament, the Prime Minister in fact made two points which remain valid today. First, the difficulty in attracting fresh talents to political office. Even in the days of 1985, before the recession, the attractions of private sector had prevented many potential office holders from coming into the political arena. The second point that the Prime Minister made was that in looking at the increase in salaries for Ministers, we should be honest and not hypocritical. It is good to score a political point by saying that Ministers can work a full day's job and not getting a full day's pay. I have also in the same session mentioned that the jobs of Ministers are much more onerous than those of the top civil servants under their charge.

Having been an office holder myself and now in the private sector, I can well appreciate that if we want a job done well we must get the best men for the job and pay the going rate. The proverbial statement of "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" is the kind of situation that we have to face.

Having said that, if we look at the First Deputy Deputy Prime Minister's proposal today the pay increases recommended are, in my view, but just one step in closing the gap between the political office holders and those of their counterparts in the private sector. Even a Minister's salary of about $28,000 a month has not gone anywhere near the salary of an average CEO in a manufacturing industry; it is, in fact, less than half that of the top CEO in that category. So we are not talking here about enriching Ministers and other political office holders. We are, in fact, talking about removing one disincentive which deters potential office holders from running for office.

There are many disincentives facing a person before he chooses to run for office, least of which are family objections, the loss of privacy and so on. The increase in pay, as suggested in today's statement, is just to remove one small irritation and, if I understand the First Deputy Prime Minister well, it will enable him to persuade potential office holders to come in and give them one excuse less. I wish the First Deputy Prime Minister well but I am afraid that the present pay increases as recommended will only go just a small way to help him to recruit new talents.

The shortage of labour in Singapore, as we can see now, extends not only to industries and services but also to political offices. I think the problem that is afflicting the First Deputy Prime Minister is the same problem that is afflicting us in the private sector. In the private sector, we are facing a severe problem of trying to get young executives to stay with us. They are all anxious to move ahead and they do not seem to be satisfied with the progress that is being afforded them. The First Deputy Prime Minister will find it even more difficult to attract this category of people unless some of the disadvantages are removed and I hope that the present pay increases, especially for the category of Ministers of State, will go some way to help him in this regard.

I would like just to comment on two particular items mentioned in the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement. First is performance bonus. Perhaps we should not equate Ministers with civil servants. Ministers' appointments are political appointments. It carries with them different risks, different benefits. Civil servants' jobs are permanent. Their salary depends very much on their performance. The judge of a Minister or political office is with the people. If the Minister does not perform well he will be voted out. It may be a bit difficult to give a ranking of Ministers' performance. I do not know whether other Ministers feel the same. But it may be better in the interest of unity in the leadership and collective responsibility that performance bonus, if it should be paid at all, should be paid to all, as in the case of Judges.

The second point which I would like to make is on make-up pay. Having listened to the First Deputy Prime Minister on the difficulty of getting young executives to run for office, I can sympathize with him that we must find a way of redressing the tremendous gap between the private sector pay and what he is likely to get in office. But I would caution perhaps that we should set a limit to this make-up pay. The rewards in the private sector can be in various ways and it also depends on time. Profit-sharing, for example, fluctuates from year to year. Therefore, it may not be feasible to match the total remuneration of a person. It may just happen that it happens in a good year, whereas if you wait for one more year, the next year may be a bit less expensive.

I think the concept of make-up pay is a bold and innovative one. But I think we should also allow for some cautionary step to ensure that the system will not be abused at a later stage.

I believe the present package given by the First Prime Minister is the best under the present circumstances and I would like, once again, to compliment him on bringing up a very sensitive issue. He can be assured that he will have my support.

The Chairman: Mr Chew Heng Ching is not here. Encik Othman.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Chairman, I support the Government's decision to revise the salaries of Ministers and other holders of political appointments. I feel it is important for us to pay our Ministers salaries comparable to the salaries of those holding key positions in the private sector. Only in this way would we be able to attract our top talents to enter politics and take part in the leadership of the country.

In fact, even with the salary revision, we may still find it difficult to attract capable and honest persons who have successful careers in the private sectors to enter politics and lead the country. Nevertheless, I hope that they would be prepared to doso because the success and future of this country depend on the availability of competent and honest leaders. With this salary revision, we would minimize the disadvantageous that they have to suffer. There are other sacrifices which will have to be made by them, like the loss of privacy, something which is beyond measure.

I agree, Mr Chairman, that our leaders must be persons who have a strong sense of public duty and who genuinely and sincerely committed to serve the nation and the people. We must not use monetary incentives alone to attract them. But what I would like to point out here is that unless we offer them reasonable salaries, our task would be even more difficult. Certainly, we want to attract people who are prepared to contribute their energy in the service of the country and who are truly concerned for our country and our citizens and who are prepared to make the sacrifices. I am confident that our leaders who have come forward to serve the country and the people, are persons who have committed themselves totally to serving the interests of the nation. Otherwise, they would certainly have not been so willing to make the sacrifice. With the talents and capabilities that they possess, they could enjoy a much more comfortable life outside politics. They are willing to sacrifice because they believe that they have a duty to look after the welfare and well being of all Singaporeans.

On that note, Mr Chairman, I fully support the salary revisions for our Ministers.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman Sir, at first I had wanted to talk about the salaries of civil servants. But now I would like to touch on the salaries of the Ministers and other political appointees. Both concern money.

First, let me say that I agree with what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said for the increase of salaries of these political appointees, from the Political Secretary to the Prime Minister. Since the Second World War, various countrie have become independent, but after independence, their economies and their societies have not necessarily taken off the ground and make any progress. On the contrary, some countries because of their religious and racial problems, their people have been split and embroiled in turmoil and misery. So from this we can learn a lesson. Those who could create a nation, and achieve independence mightnot be able to govern or manage a country. A revolutionist might not be a good 'governor' of a country.

We are foruntate to have among our first generation leaders people who are capable of both creating and governing country. Our first generation leaders have both revolutionary zeal and governing ability. In those earlier years, they even risked their lives and future to achieve independence, monetary rewards were further from their mind. They have brought about our nation to the present stage with results everybody can see

Now the first generation leaders have passed their batons to the second generation leaders who should also be the cream of our nation, elites who could administer our country with ability, efficiency, integrity and dedication. They are also engaged actively in the process of recruiting and cultivating out third generation leaders, but they have met with various difficulties as mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister. In prosperous and peaceful times, many professionals and management personnel would not like to enter the political arena because with the private enterprise they could enjoy more remunerations. Moreover, they need not sacrifice personal and family interests or risk political risks and uncertainties.

The Prime Minister had on the 7th of May 1979 also menntioned in the Parliament about increasing the Ministers' salaries from $2,500 to $4,500 a month. At that time he said that ".... Singapore cannot for the indefinite future, rely on people who are willing to make inordiante sacrifices, particularly when it is at the expense of their families ... No group of men ... are as crucial to Singapore's continued security and prosperity as the eleven who form the Cabinet ...". These words are still valid today!

Ruling a country by the judicious and able has a bearing on the well-being and future of the country. There is an ancient book quotation saying that "When a country has many judicious and able persons around, it will be conducive to the good government of the country." In principle, to give commensurate reward to those for their effort and dedication in governing a country, is, I believe, acceptable to many people. Only few people want a horse to serve well but not allow it to eat grass. Ours is a small country with scant talents pool. The present remunerations of Ministers fall far short of those paid to managerial and executive personnel in the private sector. So I agree to what the First Deputy Prime Minister has proposed-raising the salaries of the political leaders.

But giving "commensurate" remunerations must call forth "commensurate" capability and virtues in return. From Ministers down to Political Secretaries, is everyone of them definitely up to expectation? Or is there any one in the midst not up to expectation? This is what the argument is about. The picking of talent and employing the able is a profound skill and art itself. To spot a good champion steed that can run a thousand miles, one needs to be as discerning as a Bo-Le. To take a drop-out horse for a champion steed, one cannot convince people. To regard a champion steed as an inferior horse is equally regrettable.

I agree to salary increase for Ministers and other political appointees, but I am against make-up pay for them. The use of make-up pay to attract highly paid personnel in the private sector to be Ministers, I think, is based on the concept of "opportunity cost". But in actual practice, the use of opportunity cost to calculate salaries for the Ministers may give rise to certain problems. If a Minister's present pay is higher than his "opportunity cost", should he return part of his salary? Moreover, to use this method to attract "highly paid personnel" may not achieve instant result. These so called "highly paid personnel" in the private enterprises could very well wait until they have achieved success in their careers and when they have accumulated substantial wealth before going for "high price evaluation". This would also be unfair to many of our present Cabinet members who have sacrificed their own careers and families to come forth and serve the country.

To go a step further, when spotting talents it should be realized that to some people, money does not take the prime position in their values. Such people do not conscientiously go for "big money raking" professions. These people very often are wrongly regarded as without "bargaining" qualities. This kind of criterion for judging a superior or inferior horse should not only be considered further but also be deemed as contradicting the core value of "placing the greater self over the smaller self". Confucius said: "If you judge a person by his appearance, you may miss the true person". I do not know, to judge a person by his pay, what talent would we miss. Therefore, there must be certain balance between "monetary rewards" and "public service".

The second point, about giving "performance bonus", it is also not a wise measure. All policies should be formulated by collective decision of the Cabinet members, they shall bear collective responsibility for them. Minor issues like the bonus should not be allowed to cause differences among Cabinet members. That would not benefit our country.

The other major question is, why should the Ministers' salaries be linked up with the salaries of top civil servants? The Minister is the formulater of policy, whereas the civil servant is the implementor of the policy. Ministers make personal and family sacrificies and take political risks, whereas high rank civil servants do not have to. A Permanent Secretary is what the term implies-his post is 'permanent'. In the past 10 years, how many Permanent Secretaries have resigned to join the private enterprises? And, how many Permanent Secretaries have been sacked for being inefficient in implementing policies?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue is about talent scouting for the political leadership. The task is not easy. Years ago, it was easier because we had not tasted success and wealth. There was a cause then. There was a special calling, an anti-colonial fervour and urgency for independence. Many answered that call. They brought men of many diverse backgrounds into the political arena. In such a situation, many great leaders were thrown up. They were men of the ground, experienced in political craft and committed to the cause of building Singapore. Those who joined the political movement could see the changes they set out to do. I am sure it gave them much pride and satisfaction to see attap huts, laterite roads, turned into HDB flats, beautiful parks, roads and hospitals. It was easier to satisfy Singaporeans. But now with economic success and wealth, the environment has changed, such that there is no cause to fight, no ideological motivation, no reason to throw one's weight into politics. We are not hungry. We are victims of our success.

We are now consolidating our position. We need men of quality, knowledge, wisdom, to run this place. It is getting more difficult to run because expectations are higher, and often tough to meet. So it is not surprising that many men of talent do not want to be in politics to face the ever demanding populace. I am sure even with this high salary, we will not be able to attract men who are already well estab- lished and comfortable in their present jobs. I support this rise with the hope that we may be able to attract the third or fourth generation leadership of men who may be in their middle thirties and who may want to switch career at mid-stream because we are able to convince them of the need to come out and identify themselves as political leaders, ready to take over the helm after Mr Goh and company.

This group has to make a difficult decision, giving up the opportunity to be a chief executive of a company to enter politics. I was once told that the most certainty in politics is its uncertainty. And because of this, those who want to join politics must have some form of assurance or attraction to overcome this initial reservation. Salary is one. Exit management is another. Many enter politics with noble dreams. But as the heat of politics hot up, some get disillusioned and want to get out. But getting out of politics in midway is unpleasant and a fear of being labelled a failure, probably deterred many.

Exit management is important, more so in today's context because our population is affluent and sensitive. Our past records of MPs and Ministers leaving Parliament leave much to be desired. Let us pay more attention to this and it may help us to get more talent. One weakness in using salary to attract talent is a danger of getting the wrong men in. This is the fear that strikes the minds of many Singaporeans. I too share this fear. However, the one consolation is the very stringent criteria of selection. We must use this safeguard in getting the right people. We must ensure that the other qualities of commitment, loyalty to country, compassion, personal integrity and wisdom are placed much higher in priority in our selection process than salary. Salary is just one criterion.

Therefore, in this selection exercise, not all who want to get in will be successful. It is an honour, a recognition of his exemplar behaviour, character and abilities when selected.

The question of performance bonus for Ministers in my opinion is unnecessary. I think we should not put politicians in the same category as civil servants, as mentioned by the two previous speakers. The Cabinet, I strongly believe, must work as a team. It is untenable and it will create disquiet among Ministers if some get more and some get less bonus. Ministers may be tempted to take short-term views instead of long-term goals. Most of the Government's policy decisions are taken collectively in the Cabinet. In the event of a wrong, how much of the blame can be apportioned then to the individual Minister? Conversely, how much will competing Ministers share their good ideas if by so doing the other Minister is going to look better than himself? I strongly object to this and would encourage the First Deputy Prime Minister to reconsider and, in fact, drop such a move. I suggest he pays all the Ministers the bonuses he wants to give.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, in joining in this debate, I would like to say what I said during the debate on the Budget statement, ie, I welcome and support the pay increases for all political appointees as well as members of the Judiciary as stated by the First Deputy Prime Minister in his Ministerial Statement. At the outset, it must be pointed out that these increases will not have 100% support and it is easy to understand why this would be so. For a start, both Mr Chiam See Tong and Dr Lee Siew-Choh will and must oppose this on political grounds, largely to score political points.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What nonsense!

Mr Chandra Das: Some in the lower income group will feel that Ministers are already well paid.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose --

The Chairman: Mr Das, are you allowing Mr Chiam to clarify?

Mr Chandra Das: No.

The Chairman: All right. Mr Chiam, you can have your say afterwards.

Mr Chandra Das: However, Sir, I am confident that the majority of Singaporeans will understand and accept why we need to pay a fair market wage to attract the best to manage this country properly and honestly. I must say that I cannot foresee in the horizon any Lim Kim Sans or E.W. Barkers. And this is a reality and the sooner the political leadership faces the better it is for Singapore.

Sir, the other alternative is to pay political appointees a low salary; in fact, so low a salary that when they leave office or run out of office, they literally leave with billions of dollars in numbered accounts in Switzerland. We have witnessed sufficient examples of this in other countries and it is not necessary for us to repeat this in Singapore.

Sir, I am told that the proposed increases will cost the Government about $9 million. This sum is actually peanuts compared to the amount that we can lose if we do not have the right people managing the country. A wrong man in charge of the Finance Ministry can cost us billions of dollars. After all, this sum of $9 million is a small sum. In fact, it is a good insurance and I think it is necessary for all Singaporeans to understand this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with these increases in salary, I hope it will go some way to help attract talent to come and serve Singapore, although I personally believe that many of these unwilling brides merely give money as an excuse to stay out of the political arena. Nevertheless, I feel that this will be an additional weapon in the hands of the First Deputy Prime Minister and enhance his persuasive capabilities and on this I wish him well.

Sir, I like to stress two other points which I also made during the Budget debate and I hope the Frontbench will give this some consideration, although the First Deputy Prime Minister dismissed it in his Ministerial Statement. I must say that I am not totally comfortable that paying one salary alone would be sufficient. The salary and terms of service conditions are so closely linked to the civil service. Some of my colleagues earlier had mentioned that this may not be desirable. I accept that there must be some relativity between the civil service and the political service. But what we have now is really an identical service. Maybe too many of our Frontbench Members are from the civil service, therefore they feel relatively safe. My contention is that the political appointee and a civil servant are two different animals and they should be treated separately when you consider salary benefits and other benefits.

Sir, I also spoke about a remuneration package rather than a straight salary for political appointees. We do not have to go overboard on this, as mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister that it happens in other countries. Right now, it is a regular spectacle in Singapore to see our First Deputy Prime Minister, Second Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers driving their SOs around in their cars. This may have been the right thing to do in the 60s and in the 70s. But I would like to question its relevance in the 1980s. I would strongly urge that the Ministers cannot be given houses, at least consider a car and a driver instead.

Let me paint a scenario to you where a Senior Minister gets involved in a serious road accident. Maybe as a result of negligence, worried about his performance bonus, and as a result he is charged in court, fined over $5,000, and loses his parliamentary seat. This is very costly. You lose a very good man. This has not happened so far. Touch wood, we are very grateful for this. But do we want something like this to happen first before we change? Or do we change now for the better?

Sir, like my other colleagues, I am also not in favour of the performance bonus, apart from driving cars. I think performance bonus for civil servants is an excellent idea. But performance, bonus for Ministers should be dropped.

On this note, Sir, I support the salary increases announced by the First Deputy Prime Minister.

The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the First Deputy Prime Minister's proposal to adjust the salaries of Ministers, other political leaders above the grade of Political Secretaries. I only wish to say a few words in supplement. There is a saying in Chinese, "When a nation breaks down, the homes will perish". That is to say, the nation is more important than the home. There is another Chinese saying: "Of the three categories of unfilial sons, the worst is the one who leaves no descendant". Since the question of succession is so important in terms of the homes, what about the succession in the more important role of governing the nation? Just now, Dr Ow Chin Hock mentioned that founding a nation is not an easy task. Yet, not all the revolutionalists who founded the nations can build the nation. Therefore, the role of nation building is even more difficult. We all know, it is difficult to establish a career, even more so to maintain the career. In the case of a nation, after it hasbeen founded, to keep it going, to ensure its prosperity, to maintain and continue the development that we have established, and to govern the nation well, is a more complicated and difficult task. So, we have to attach much importance to this matter, to keep on attracting talented people to contribute to the development of our nation. Of course, the talented people, as the first Deputy Prime Minister said just now, also need to make a living. They will have to make some sacrifices when they go into politics. However, the sacrifices they have to make must not be too great. Otherwise, it will be difficult to attract them.

The adjustment to the salaries of the Ministers, Political Secretaries, Parliamentary Secretaries has to be approved by Parliament before it could come into effect. Some people say, "Wouldn't it be embarrasing to ask for a pay rise for yourselves?" But, this is the procedure we have to adopt to adjust the salaries. The PAP Government has, all along, been open and aboveboard in all its dealings. No cover-up, no hypocrisy. We want to have an adjustment, we deal with it openly. The First Deputy Prime Minister has made it very clear. The adjustment is made for the purpose of attracting the talented people, and not for the older generation. Our Prime Minister has been in politics for more than 30 years. He has never utter a word of complaint about his personal income. I believe, it is the same for many of the older generation leaders. The First Deputy Prime minister joined politics in 1976. He has made a great sacrifice. Yet, not a word of complaint from him. However, what we are looking after, is the future of Singapore. We are concerned with the question of succession in political leadership. The gretest tragedy that could befall a nation is the lack of able successors to its political leadership, to serve Singapore. Whether Singapore will continue to prosper and to advance will depend on how we could solve the problem of attracting talented people to succeed the political leadership, to avoid the tragedy, to overcome the mishap of able successors not forth coming. Thank you.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to speak.

Sir, before I begin, may I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister to clarify certain points. Other than the amount of salary received as stated in Annex B, whether or not Ministers have other perks. If there are, what are they? Whether Ministers pay income tax? And how does this salary scale of Ministers compare to that of England, Australia and New Zealand, if he has got the data?

Sir, I certainly do not have any objection to the increase of salary for the civil servants. But I think the civil servants and the political appointees are distinct and separate. They are two different entities. Normally, in a democratic country the civil servants are a permanent feature. Whatever political party is in power, the civil servants are left intact. There is a sense of continuity. In Japan and in England the civil servants have a very big say in the running of the country. In fact, in Japan, I believe, they not only carry out the day-to-day administration of the country, but they are also responsible for policy. So I do not begrudge them. They are really carrying the burden of running the country.

What we are talking today is salary revisions of political appointees. I think there are really two principles to be adopted. I am objecting, not as Mr Chandra Das has said, to score political points. I hope I have not spoken in this House just to score political points. I think one must speak of one's belief and of one's conviction.

Sir, I am objecting to the increase of Ministers' salaries on principle. As I say, there are two principles, I believe, which are at issue today. The first is you pay the Minister with a materialistic approach. You pay him his market value, as we have been told in this House. Or we can have the second principle, and that is, to take an idealistic approach - a sense of public service. These are two contrasting approaches to the salaries of Ministers and other political appointees.

Sir, in most western countries, I think they adopt not the former but the latter - an idealistic approach. Because Mininisters and political appointees and Members of Parliament, they are leaders of the country, whether they like it or not. Sir, they have to set the example; they have to set the mores, they have to set the standard of honesty, they have to set the standard of conduct for others to follow. I think it was Mr Chou En-Lai. He was once interviewed and he said, "Yes, we leaders have to go 100% and if our followers at least keep up to 50% or 60%, we know at least that they are getting on somewhere."

Sir, I remember when I was in England, not in the last general elections of the British Parliament but the one before, Mrs Margeret Thatcher, in her speech after winning the general elections, thanked all voters for returning her to office again, and she said that the appointment of the Prime Ministership is power given to her by the people on trust. It is not beneficially given to her. It is given to her on trust. She is holding that position on trust for the people. It is not hers at all. So that is how politics is approached in England. It is the idealistic approach. She is there to work for the people, not for herself.

Sir, the British all these years have the idealistic approach to leadership. If you are in London and you visit the cathedrals or any of the prominent buildings, you will notice that there are many statues, many plaques put up on the walls extolling their citizens who have given public service.

Mr Chandra Das: Put up one for you.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I believe that was how the British Empire was built, not by materialistic pay. It was the idealism that was built in the British people. In the early days, I believe that if you go into any British classroom you will see a map of the world and you can see the red markings all over the maps, and the teacher will say, "Look, that is a British colony under our domain. And we are there to rule these people for their benefit". Of course, they put it in another way. Whether you agree or not but this is how the British approached it in an idealistic way. And in the public schools they bring up their children to be administrators to their colonies to work for the Empire, not specifically for pay.

An hon. Member: They didn't get paid?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, they get paid. Sir, that is the idealistic approach to leadership. Sir, we can tell countless stories of British administrators, judges, teachers, doctors, who have gone to far-off tropical places. I know, for sure, of two teachers who had taught in a Kuala Lumpur mission school all their life and on retirement they went back to England to spend their last days in a nursing home. This is the sort of dedication they give to their service. They were unmarried; they were ladies. They even had no one to take care of them on their retirement. Sir, this is the sort of idealism that the British were able to build up.

Sir, there are vast numbers of people working in professions, in jobs, which need this kind of idealism. I am thinking of nurses, doctors, teachers, perhaps even our armed forces, people who keep law and order. So how are you going to judge the salary of these people - nurses, doctors, who save the lives of people. What is the value you are going to set for them? You cannot really set a price. It is their dedication to the job that saves lives, that keeps the health service up. And teachers. This Government is moaning that there are not enough teachers. Why? Because probably the system we are building up is based on materialism, on pay. So our young talented people are not idealistic enough to go into the teaching profession and we have difficulties getting our bright young boys to go into the teaching profession. Hopefully, many of our real good talents would not be disappointed with our system and run to places where they feel that they can get a more fulfilling life.

Sir, this Government I believe takes a materialistic approach. I suppose in the circumstance, if you look at it, if the Government wants this kind of a system, I suppose the people will have to decide whether or not we want the system that the Government is building for Singapore. Pay Ministers, pay civil servants, that amount of salary which the Government thinks should be enough and then no more for you, no more corruption, that is all you are getting. I suppose in a way there are merits in this kind of a system. In other words, you pay the person up to the limit, and that is all he is getting. Unlike other countries, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, it amounts to hypocrisy - people coming into politics, get a very low meagre pay and then from the side they make big, big monies by corruption. I suppose that is also a very bad system. So I think we understand what this present system is: to attract, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, the people from the limited talent pool to encourage them to come into politics and then, with their eyes open, "This is all that you are getting, and no more."

Sir, but pay is a very subjective matter. How much is enough? You cannot really determine an amount. As I see this Annex B, the Prime Minister is getting $38,275. Is this enough? If you really look at his contributions, it is peanuts. It is really not enough. He has brought Singapore to what it is today (I mean, of course, with the help of others) not he alone, but his leadership. It is not enough. What is enough? Even if you pay him $1 million a year, it is not enough. $2 million?

Sir, I remember a long time ago, I believe the PAP Ministers started off with $3,000 a month, or was it $3,500. That was all. And I remember also reading, when the other Ministers got a pay rise, the Prime Minister voluntarily refrained from getting a pay rise. Why did he come into politics? It is the drive, the urge to contribute to nation building, to make Singapore independent, to make Singapore great. That is the drive, not the pay. I think the Prime Minister himself said pay was irrelevant. That is very true - pay is irrelevant. People who go into politics in the early days did not think of pay at all. They did not think of material benefits. They just had one goal, and that is, nation building.

Sir, of course, this is a different era. Today in the eighties, the situation is different from the early days when the PAP started out to strive for self-government and then independence. But it is a pity, really a pity, the PAP has lost much of its idealism. I believe the PAP started out with great ideals. They had democratic socialism in mind. They were working genuinely for the people and the masses of the people supported them wholesale because they had that idealism. They were not working for themselves. They were working for the people. Now the PAP has come to a situation where I think even the old guards say that the PAP is not recognizable to them. It is a differet PAP today.

Sir, we have this revision of Ministers' salary. As I said, salary scales are subjective. There must be a basis for these salary scales. Of course, the PAP's basis is to attain the market value of Ministers. But there is another way of looking at Ministers' salary, and that is, to compare it to the average salary of the worker. The workers contribute to the creation of wealth in this country. Labour is a true source of wealth - labour, land and of course other resources. I do not know how our Members of Parliament in this House from the labour movement are going to explain to their members. I believe the average worker in Singapore earns not more than $1,000. I think 80% earn less than $1,000 per month. If you look at the advertisements in the papers, you see all kinds of perks given to a factory operator - $560 starting pay and together with this and that, at the most it is $700-plus.

If we look at it another way, a worker has to work 30 months to get the same pay as a Minister if we take the average pay of Ministers as $30,000. A Minister works one month, our average worker has to work 30 months and if our --- [Interruption]. Yes, I think that is a basis of comparison. Can we say that a Minister is so valuable that the differential is so great as far as nation building is concerned?

Sir, how do you pay Albert Schweitzer? Albert Schweitzer was a German philosopher, a great organist of Bach, he was an expert in the works of Bach, and he was also a great surgeon. He went to deep Africa, gave his life to the Africans.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Why don't you go to Africa?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, can Singapore produce Albert Schweitzers? I think we actually did. [Laughter].Do not laugh. I think we have one. I remember reading in the Straits Times we have got one Dr Ang. I think she went to Lebanon in the danger of losing her life to treat the wounded in the civil war there. How much are you going to pay her? In the case of Margaret Thatcher, she was responsible at least for policy making. I believe she was responsible for the victory in the Falklands War.

An hon. Member: Is it?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, Mrs Thatcher, the English Prime Minister. How much are you going to pay her for that? Really there is no such thing as a pay which is enough. We should look at Singapore's context and look at what philosophy we are applying, whether it is an out-and-out capitalist philosophy or whether there are some socialist principles, which we should adopt. If we are going to adopt the socialist principles, then there must be a lot of self-restraint. Salaries of Ministers appropriately, I think, should not be decided by Ministers as I think the Second Deputy Prime Minister has said, it is embarrassing to give yourself a pay rise. Have I got it correctly?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: I did not say that. People will be asking whether it is embarrassing.

Mr Chiam See Tong: People will be asking. To me, I think it is embarrassing to give myself a pay rise.

The Prime Minister: You can refuse it.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, now that the Prime Minister has mentioned about my pay as MP, is $4,000 enough? I am not saying that it is not enough. I did not say that. It is very subjective. The Prime Minister has said that this is my 13th year in politics. After three tries, the fourth try I was successful. How do you gauge your salary for all those works done and trouble and the sort of uncomfortableness that you have put in. I think it is really difficult to put a peg at a certain pay rise. In Singapore's context, I think Ministers' salary should have a basis, not based on market value, but really what is enough for that standard of living and a bit extra, if you like. Because I think basically Ministers should take the lead, if we really want to build a nation. Of course, if we are running a company, then it is a different matter altogether. The whole idea of going into business is profit. That is the aim. If anybody who says he wants to go into business for public good, I think you had better close your business. That is the main fault of the Malaysians. They get into politics and they want to set up cooperatives. There is a conflict. You cannot go into politics and do business at the same time. Either you go into business or you go into politics. You cannot mix the two. That is their mistake. So if you want to go into business, by all means and if you can make $151,000 a month, I wish him good luck. I do not envy him at all and if they are paid $196,000 per month or even $10 million if he makes in one deal, I do not envy him. That is his aim in business. But we cannot compare political salary with people in the private sector. There is no basis of comparison because the two aims are different. One is public service, the other is profit. How can you compare the two? You cannot. There is no basis of comparison.

If you want to go into public service, go the whole hog. I know in our materialistic society today, probably there are difficulties in getting good men. But in the early days Singapore was able to get good men and I cannot see why we should not strive harder or, in fact, get some of the old guards back.

In the army, if you want to be the General, if you want to be the leader, you do not get the best position. You do not adopt the safest position. The leader is the one who, when he says "Charge", he is right in front, charging, just like the Prime Minister. But with all these incentives of salary, pay, I do not know whether or not our leaders today, when they say "Charge", will be in front or will they be behind. Because if you are going for pay alone, you have not got that commitment to really be in front. It is those people with the commitment who will, when they say "charge", be in front there. But if you pay them a salary, even a bigger pay, when you say "charge", he will look around and say, "You chaps better go first. I don't want the salary." I think that is a problem there.

If we adopt this materialistic approach, in the long run if there is a real crunch, let us say if there is a war, what will happen to our leaders? Will they be here? Like Winston Churchill, he refused to get out of London.In the midst of the blitz he remained there. He was not concerned with his pay and salary. He was there, the leader. The leader must be in the midst of the war.

Mr Chandra Das: Are you suggesting they will run?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not know. If you are just going to get men based on just pay, then if there is really a final crunch, will these people stay in the midst of the greatest danger?

So I am objecting, as I said, not for political gains or score political points, but based on principles, because I say that Ministers are leaders of the country and their aim is to give public service and therefore our criteria should not be the salary to attract them. There must be something more. I believe in the idealistic approach.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, first a few words on the salary increases of the civil servants. In my short speech on the Budget, I said:

'While it may sound fair to revise salaries for those who carry heavy responsibilities in government work, it is not possible to match salaries in the public sector with those in the private sector. And it is wrong to do so.'

Sir, we believe that there is a case for salary increases for civil servants on the timescale and also other professional and statutory bodies. And we also believe that there is a very strong case for the salary increases for those in the Civil Service at the bottom. But we find it difficult to accept that the salaries for Permanent Secretaries, which are already high, should be further increased. Still less, Sir, do we see any necessity to have so-called performance bonuses and other extra grades for the civil servants right at the top. We believe, Sir, this is merely an attempt to buy their loyalty and to reward their loyalty to the ruling Party. It is basically wrong.

For comparison, Sir, we should think of salaries of Permanent Secretaries in other countries, as mentioned by Mr Chiam, not necessarily of countries around us in South-East Asia but of salaries in other developed countries, like Britain, Australia, New Zealand, elsewhere. And if we want to compare the public sector vis-a-vis the private sector, then we should compare also, very importantly, all the salaries at the bottom. As you all know, 70% of the workers in Singapore earn less than $1,000 a month. They will find it very difficult as time goes by, whereas those at the top will find it only too easy. And if you want to talk of raising salaries of civil servants right at the top, what about having a minimum wage for the workers? The Government has not mentioned that at all. I do not know why the Second Deputy Prime Minister has not mentioned that at all. He is supposed to be looking after the workers. But all I can see is he gets an office which is a sinecure.

Of course, Sir, there is also a danger of these general salary increases triggering off a general price increase of all things and of salaries in the private sector. As regards the private sector, Sir, I am sure the Ministers will agree that there are many businesses in the private sector which are not doing well at all. Many of those who are working in business firms do not get a good salary. If you want to compare, compare that as well. Why only compare salaries of those right at the top?

Sir, on the Ministers salaries, I also agree with Mr Chiam that there is no basis for comparison whatsoever. It is wrong to compare Ministers' salaries with those in the private sector, as also mentioned by Mr Bernard Chen.

The Ministers have prestige, status and power which no amount of money can buy. You just see how the Prime Minister goes about - cars in front, cars behind. How many people are around him? You don't get such kind of attention in the private sector! And as mentioned also by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, if you give make-up pay, the danger is that you might not get the right people in and instead get the wrong people in. And then we are in the soup. If people in the private sector wants to enter politics because of high salaries (as the First Deputy Prime Minister has already said), then they do not deserve to be Ministers anyway. If they really want high salaries, I suggest that they emulate Michael Jackson - Go and be an actor! Get onto the stage. They can earn much more money. Why don't they?

The First Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the judges. He said our judges receive very low salaries in comparison with the top 50 or 30 in the private sector. Has he ever compared the salaries of judges in Britain with the earnings of QCs who earn lots of money? Why can't he give us those comparisons as well, so that we can better judge exactly how underpaid our top civil servants and judges are?

The Minister also said that if anybody should oppose the salary increases, it is because of hypocrisy. Sir, I have been in politics for quite some time and I am sure the Prime Minister would agree that, whatever name he may label on me, I am not one who is a hypocrite. I have gone into politics because I believe in something. On this occasion, I believe that to increase the big salaries of our Ministers is not correct. How high? How much is enough? There is no proper figure. You just cannot tell. As I have mentioned on other occasions, high salaries do not necessarily give you a clean, honest government. Sometimes you get Ministers who are corrupt and the Government would not know until quite sometime later. In the meanwhile, all the damage has already been done. If you want to talk of high salaries keeping a person honest, then there are lots of people outside who earn very high salaries, and they keep on being corrupt. The more money they have, the more money they want. We have examples of people who are prosecuted in court - tycoons, stockbrokers, lawyers, bankers. You just name them, you get them!

On many occasions, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister talked about our small talent pool and that we cannot get the people we want. If you pursue a policy of elitism, of course you are bound to get a small talent pool. As the Prime Minister once said (he always believes in things like that, which is wrong), he said that if he and his 300 colleagues should go into a jumbo jet and it crashed, Singapore would perish. Does anybody really believe in that? I do not think the Prime Minister himself believes in that.

The other day when I asked questions about why people resign from government service, I already indicated that there are many reasons why people just do not want to take part in politics. Maybe it is because they cannot agree with many of the government policies. They cannot agree with the education policy, for example. The 1DPM speaks of Ministers who were President Scholars and what-nots, doing all their best for the Government. I am sure the Government will that remember not so very long ago Education Ministers had to be changed frequently, and there were about 10 or 11 different Education Ministers all in a span of two or three years. If the policy was correct, then the government would not need to change Ministers. Only recently, Sir, the Ministers also made many blunders, and they had to keep changing policies in order to win back lost votes. Thus we can see that all the talent need not necessarily be with the Ministers. If the government should cast the net wide enough, I am sure it will get many, many more such talents everywhere.

And then, of course, there is always a fear of the "big brother". I will touch a little more on that. Many people have disagreed with many things which the Government is doing and they are voting with their feet and emigrated, as one Minister of State has said. Therefore, there are many, many other reasons. Among the professionals, there are a number of doctors, and even lawyers too I hear, who are very unhappy with the terms and conditions of service. Of course, they would like bigger salaries. Who doesn't? But then, one very big complaint is that the terms and conditions of service are not good enough. They do not give them freedom of initiative. And in spite of the announced restructuring of the General Hospital, they may still not give doctors such freedom of initiative. So we have to wait and see.

Sir, there were also many people who found they had no chance of promotion simply because they could not agree with their superiors. And since all the assessments of officers are done by their superiors, those who found that they could not agree with their superiors would have to opt out-no point of staying on and becoming second-line officers without chance of promotion at all.

Then one most important reason why many people have not taken part in politics-the Ministers of course know it- is because of the climate of fear in Singapore. The climate of fear, Sir, has driven many people away from politics. They dare not take part. I myself was afraid! Yes, Sir, I remember in 1958 when the Prime Minister asked me to stand as a candidate for the City Council by-election in Kallang. I told the Prime Minister that I was scared. Scared of what? ISA. The ISA is the trump card of the PAP. That is how the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been able to remain in office all these years. It might have done something good - true. But I would say that if I support many of the government policies today, it is because these policies are the very policies which we fought for in the old days. And I am glad that government has changed them. Govt has realized its mistakes. The Prime Minister himself admits to the Taiwan newspaper that if he had a chance, he might change many things. And already other people have changed some of these policies for him.

So that is the situation, Sir-the fear. And when it comes to elections, it is always very difficult to get professional people to step foward and stand as oppo- sition candidates. They just dare not. They have seen what happened. The moment they oppose the government, they become Marxists. The moment they oppose the government, they are supposed to be linked to some united front activity or other. All sorts of labels have been indiscriminately used by the Prime Minister in the past and by the new Ministers today. All in order to suppress the opposition and to intimidate - that is the word, "intimidate" - all those who would like to contribute their share towards the running of the country. I would suggest that if the Ministers should care to really implement policies that allow all the people to take part in politics without fear, then I am sure there will be many many more people coming into the political arena and the so-called talent pool will increase immensely.

Now, Sir, the Government realizes that it has difficulty in getting public support for the salary increases. Fancy, 70% of our workers receive less than $1,000 a month. Would they be happy seeing our Prime Minister and Ministers getting $30-$40,000 a month? They work all their lives and they would not be able to amass anything near those figures which our Ministers are going to get in one month. All you need to do is to become a Minister in the Government and at most in two years, you become a millionaire. The salaries are all there, in spite of the fact that Ministers have to pay income tax. Of course, the income tax is paid by us. They get the salaries. So how can government expect support from the people in the circumstances?

Some people may wonder, and I heard this a little while ago, why people still take part in politics in spite of the ISA and in spite of the danger of being kept behind bars. Well, there are people who have beliefs in certain things. From the beginning, we hold such beliefs. And if we believe in certain things, of course, we see things according to the facts which the First Deputy Prime Minister has outlined, from a slightly different perspective. We do not look at those things in the same way as the Ministers look at them. And we therefore believe that it is more important for people who enter politics to be dedi- cated, really dedicated. Some people say that the word "dedication" does not make sense nowadays. It does. If the Minister is really dedicated, he would not think too much about the salary, so long as he is paid adequately. Yes, I agree that we should increase our salaries in general in many ways to make sure that they are adequate. But it is very difficult to hold the level down as to what is adequate and what is not for many people. And if they think only of salaries, then of course however much you give them will never be enough.

Government frequently speaks of a clean, honest government. I have already mentioned the fact that high salaries do not necessarily give you a clean, honest government or honest Ministers. And history has proven that what I have said is true. I do not need to go very far back for names. Just the latest will do, namely, Teh Cheang Wan and Phey Yew Kok. Although they were drawing high salaries, nevertheless, something went wrong. Therefore, high salaries need not be such an important factor for recruiting people to become honest Ministers.

How do you prevent corruption? The Prime Minister has given a good talk on this before, and I have tried to look up the old newspapers. But let me remind all in the House that we have a capitalist economy in Singapore. And in a capitalist economy where money is the main criterion of whether a person is a success or not, there is no way, no 100% way, of preventing corruption, however high a salary you may give a person. The only way, as I have seen from the newspapers,is that you have a vigilant CPIB. Yes, that is very important. And equally important is that there must be frequent checking. But how do you check? If the Ministers merely declare their assets to the Prime Minister, alone, only one person can check. I am not saying that the Prime Minister is not honest. But then he may not be the Prime Minister all the time. There may be other Prime Ministers. If you want the assets to be checked, then they should be checked (even if you want to have confidentiality in such matters), by a special committee of honest people whom we all respecst and trust. And better still, of course, if the Ministers could declare their assets publicly before they take office. That would tell the people exactly where they stand. That allows all the people to check and not only one person to check which, in principle, is wrong, just as in the case of the elected President. One person checking is wrong. You must allow more people to check, as already suggested by a Minister of State - better that checking be done by a committee. And that would reduce opposition from many people.

But more than that, as was also previously emphasized by the Prime Minister, there must be public conscience on the matter. The moral values of society must be correct. In China, when they had a slightly different system, there was hardly any dishonesty that we knew of. Nowadays, it is different. Conditions have changed. Singapore is a capitalist country with a developing expanding capitalist system. Giving high salaries, might help. If you have severe laws and penalties, that also will help. But most important of all is open public surveillance and it is important that we all have the correct social Asian moral values.

The Government now stresses a lot on moral values. I agree with many of the moral values that they have suggested. But the point is how do they carry out the teaching of moral values and how do political leaders actually carry them out in practice, so that everybody is imbued with those moral values, and so do not go corrupt or things like that? We have seen examples of people who have high moral values, taxi drivers, chambermaids, and who have found lots of money and giving them back to the owners. They do not want to take the money though they do not have high salaries. They do not need high salaries in order to be honest and not be corrupt. Wonderful people we have in Singapore and they are honest not because of high salaries.

To summarize, Sir, leadership is all important in this kind of things. In this instance, the Government has set a poor example. Ministers should, in fact, lead in not drawing high salaries, and as far as possible inculcate the moral values of dedication to service for the people by setting examples themselves. Otherwise, we will be following what Mr Rajaratnam had once said - moneytheism. We do not want that in Singapore. Ministers then become ugly Singaporeans, not pretty ones.

Sir, we believe that the gap between the salaries at the top and at the bottom should not be too wide. If it is already wide, then the gap should be narrowed. At the present moment, the proposed salaries will make the gap wider still. I do not think we want that.

Lastly, Sir, may I just remind the Minister that their salary increases can trigger off a lot of unnecessary side-effects. Mr Bernard Chen has already warned of the possible effects this might have on the economy. And already the Singapore economy is supposed not to do as well this year as last year. So when the economy goes down, more people will be affected. Those people who are sitting pretty at the top are those who have high salaries. But let them think also of those people at the bottom, those people who have very low salaries and who can hardly make ends meet. We asked for an increase in the personal allowance for those who are in the lower income group. What did the Minister say? Nothing doing. How then can you help them? Yet those in the low income groups are the people we should help. All the incentives given in the budget so far are incentives which give more benefits to those people who are very well off. They do not benefit those at the bottom.

Sir, I do not agree with all the salary increases that have been given and I hope that the Government would do everything possible to narrow the gap. If the PAP Government should still follow the old principle laid down in 1959, than what we want today is a really more equal and just society. If you increase salaries for those at the top and ignore those at the bottom, or merely give them a very small increase, then you are increasing social inequalities and increasing social injustice. I hope that is not what the Government wants to do.

The Minister for Education (Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the measures announced by the First Deputy Prime Minister to revise the salaries of the political and judicial office holders and to revise the MP's allowance. As much has been said on this matter, I do not want to repeat what has already been said. But I want to make a few remarks.

Many people including the Member for Potong Pasir and the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament have stressed the point - and our own MPs have also stressed the point - that a sense of mission and a sense of public service are needed for people who intend to go into politics. I agree that these are essential requirements. No one who does not have a sense of mission or a sense of public service should go into politics. While these are two essential requirements and they are necessary, we should ask ourselves whether they are sufficient, not now, but particularly for the future?

Sir, the first generation leaders were the products of an era of monumental change in our country's history. They faced a great challenge-to found a new nation and to ensure its viability. Against this great challenge, all personal considerations paled into insignificance. I think, quite honestly, all Singaporeans should be grateful that at a critical time in our nation's history, there was a group of men led by the Prime Minister who were prepared to take on this challenge and their success can be seen in the thriving Singapore that we have today.

What about the second generation leaders? What is there to motivate them? They went into politics at a time when salaries of Ministers were much lower than they are today. What is the challenge which they face? Singapore has had only one Prime Minister since we became independent. I think the challenge for the second generation leaders, above all else, is to show that an orderly transition of power is possible.

When the Prime Minister hands over the reins of power to Mr Goh Chok Tong, it is our task to show that the present high standards of administration and honest and effective Government will still continue and that the success of the first generation leaders is not a fluke or an accident of history. But if the second generation leaders succeed, and I am confident we will, what is there then to motivate, as Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, the third generation leaders, or the fourth generation leaders? With an orderly transition of power, those who come after us should be able in due course to look forward to a Singapore whose viability is not in question. There will be problems. There will be crises ahead. But unless circumstances change dramatically or we do something very foolish, these will not be such as to threaten the survival of our nation. You ask yourself then: what is there to motivate capable young men or young women to enter the political arena, to give up their comfortable lives, their privacy and take office as Ministers of State, or Senior Ministers of State, and get the necessary experience and expertise to become full Ministers? I think that the job of attracting competent and committed young men and women to take office will become more and more difficult in the coming years.

A sense of mission and a sense of public service is still essential. Without that nothing will proceed. But it is not fair, Sir, that young men and women in future should be asked to take public office at the expense of their families, their wives and their children. They should be able to provide for their families adequately. They should be allowed to do their jobs without feeling a sense of guilt that they have not done the best they can to provide for their own families.

Sir, I believe that the salary revisions are necessary mainly to ensure that we will continue to be able to attract capable, committed young men and young women to take on public office in Singapore in the coming years. Without these salary revisions, Sir, to expect the best to come forward, I think is simply to leave too much to chance. For this reason, Sir, I support the salary revisions and I urge all Members of this House to have no qualms in supporting them. They are an investment in Singapore's future.

The Minister for National Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Chairman, Sir, I also wish to rise to support the statement made by the First Deputy Prime Minister. My colleague, Dr Tony Tan, has spoken on what motivates the second generation leadership and I want to take this opportunity to very briefly explain what motivated my colleagues and me to come into politics.

When we were first approached we had to weigh many factors before entering politics. As we began to discuss and think about the prospect of entering politics, we became increasingly aware of the vital importance of continuing good political leadership for Singapore's future. We saw that the progress, the stability that the first generation leaership had succeeded to bring to Singapore had created many avenues for the young and talented to pursue and have a meaningful life. This very success had worked against good people, talented people, honest people coming into politics. There were no great injustices to be put right, no oppression to overthrow, no corrupt and venal leaders to unseat. Things were certainly not perfect. But the path to further economic and social progress seemed unthreatened. Thus the good were not being attracted to politics.

Yet as we examined the situation it was clear that the first generation was entering the last lap and there was nobody in sight to take over the baton. Having understood the problem, it was not possible for us in good conscience to say that it was up to somebody else to provide the solution. We had to be part of the solution. We were not attracted by money, power, prestige or fame. We were aware of the costs to our personal life, to our family life. But I must confess that in 1976 when I decided, I was less aware of these sacrifices than I am today. We were not fully aware of the demands of the electorate and of the constituents. I am not so sure if I had been so fully aware in 1976 whether I would have come into politics. But I want to say this, and I want to underline this, that having been in politics for 12 years I am also aware of the vital importance of power being in the hands of honest, com- petent people. Looking at it today, I would say that though the sacrifice is greater than I ever thought it would be, it is still worth it, in order to have the reins of political power in the right hands.

Therefore, Mr Chairman, Sir, when I from time to time have to speak to people to persuade them to come into politics, especially those with the potential to become office-holders, I am very very conscious of the fact that I am asking that person to do something that will change his or her entire life. It is not like working for a head hunting firm, just speaking to a person to persuade him to change his career. It is something that will affect his whole life and the life of his family, his wife, his children. There are so many factors that make it unattractive to take up the challenge. There is in fact almost nothing that we can do to mitigate the pressures, the sacrifice in personal and family life that a person entering politics has to make. It is only a sense of service that can make the cause worthwhile. But there is one area that we can do something to mitigate the sacrifice and that is in the area of salary, to make it not much less than what that person would be earning if he were not in politics. Not to do something in this one area where we can do something would be irresponsible. Mark you, I am not saying that we should attract people through high salaries and that high salaries make up for the sacrifices. What I am saying is that this is one area where we can minimize the loss and we should minimize the loss. That is the reason why I support the First Deputy Prime Minister

The Chairman: Order. Moment of interruption.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.24 pm until 3.40 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm