COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Exempted Business Motion)

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Resolved,

That the proceedings on Amendment No. (1) to Head N, Ministry of Finance, in the Committee of Supply, be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Head N (cont.) -

Mr Lim Boon Heng: Mr Chairman, Sir, a question has been asked about how workers in Singapore would view the salary increases that we are proposing for Ministers and other political office-holders. Sir, I submit that the Singapore worker is a very practical minded person. His aspiration is to have a good job that pays him well. What he wants in Singapore is to have a good political leadership that will be able to set the right policies, to attract the right investments, to get him a job. Having come through the recent recession, the Singapore worker knows that if we have the wrong people in charge, we would have a far worse recession and the alternative to good leadership would be not two years of wage restraint but perhaps several years of unemployment. The Singapore worker also knows that in the context of Southeast Asia and South Asia it is very important to stress on good leadership to create the right employment. Otherwise the Singapore worker would be like the Filipino maid, going overseas to look for jobs. Otherwise the Singapore worker could find himself in the same position as some of the Thai workers today. Perhaps if we do not have the right leadership to create the right policies, to formulate the right policies, to create the right employment, the Singapore worker himself will be forced to go overseas and perhaps to work illegally. Do we want our Minister to go overseas in order to bail them out to avoid their being punished by the laws of a different country? I think that is the price of good political leadership and the right kind of political leadership that we should have in Singapore.

I sumit that the Singapore worker today wants to have a good job, wants to have a good pay and hopes that he shall never have to wander very far to find a job. I think he relishes the position he is in today where he can walk into any factory to get the job that he wants. If he does not like the job, he can walk to the next factory to get a better paying job. So the price we are talking about today of $9 million per year in terms of wage increase for political appointees, for Members of Parliament, is a small price to pay.

The Singapore worker also knows that in his own company his managers are paid more than our Ministers of State. Therefore he does not worry unduly about the wage increases that we are talking about giving to our Ministers when in fact they are still below the wages which their own managers are being paid. Our workers also know that in their workplace when the managers get pay increases there is no consultation about how much should the managers' wages be increased, not like what we are doing today of debating how much our Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries, ought to be paid. This I hope will be the spirit in which we discuss the subject of salary increases for our Ministers.

Sir, the Singaporean knows that in our context, it is the policy maker who decides policy and if the policies are right, things go well for the country and it is quite ridiculous to consider that the policy-makers, the Ministers and Ministers of State, should be paid less than civil servants who in fact are the executors of the policy. If we want, first of all, the policies to be right then we ought to have the right people in those places, then comes the civil service. So our priority must be to make sure that in our system we always shall have the best talent available in the country in political leadership. Ideals are important. They drive a country forward but ideals will only produce certain results and I submit to Mr Chiam that in the days of the Empire it was not pure idealism that drove British people overseas to conquer foreign lands. It was more than just idealism. It was also the rewards that went with it. If there was no reward, would we have gone through a period of struggle for independence, if we did not see the benefits accrued to the colonial power and not to the people? And we all know how the people in charge of the empire lived, even in our own country. Were they not staying in the Istana free of charge? Were they not living in Command House? We all know that the colonial administrator was amply rewarded and perhaps with all the trappings they were much better paid in the past than what is being paid to our Ministers today.

Sir, with your indulgence, I would also like to touch on another point about civil servants. Although I say that priority should be given to those who set policy, it does not mean that we should forget the civil service because the implementers are also important. We have had the revision of salaries for civil servants but I would like to voice what some of my friends who have been working in the civil service said, and that is, the question of promotion. It is not merely the pay but also the hassle that he has to go through in order to get promoted. Some of these civil servants who were seconded to the NTUC have related to us the kind of hassle that they have to go through in order to get promoted. I think that apart from revising the salaries of civil servants we should look also very seriously into the pace and manner of promotion of civil servants.

The Prime Minister: Mr Chairman, Sir, first, may I pick up where the last speaker, Mr Lim Boon Heng, left off about the salaries of the civil service. In 1981, I moved the first major revision. In 1985, I moved a second major revision. In 1989, we are in a third major revision. Why? We can increase the salaries but the progression an officer enjoys depends not just on the salary scale or the value of the superscales but on the rate of promotion and, unfortunately, there was a lack of synchronization between what the public sector did and what was happening in the private sector. I hope we can avoid a repetition of the slow promotions in the Administrative Service and the general public service which caused problems in the past.

It was because of a generation gap in the values and perceptions of the former Chairman of the Public Service Commission, the late Mr Tan Teck Chwee, and the young scholars he recruited and promoted. Mr Tan was a very able man. He rose to the top by sheer ability, versatility, grit, hard work. He had never been recruited into the civil service. At the time when he graduated only the top best two students would get a chance into the Straits Settlement's civil service-the cream of all the jobs available. You began life at $150 a month in the 1930s and on confirmation, after two years, you got $190, the best paid job. No multi-national, Shell or any other company, paid that sum.

In his final year in Raffles College he faced family difficulties because his father had died. That affected his examination results and he missed his First Class. So he ended up as a teacher in Raffles Institution, the best he could hope for at that time, at a salary of around $120. After the war he went back to teaching, then he ventured into business as a contractor in the earth-moving business and he proved that he was not only a scholar but a practical and shrewd businessman, one with great foresight and organizational ability. He made a success of his business and he ended up helping the Government run Jurong Shipyard Ltd and Jurong Engineering Ltd and when he retired he took on the Chairmanship of the PSC.

He wanted our scholars to go through life the way he did, that made him. He did not realize or did not acknowledge that, in a fast growing economy, values were changing rapidly and our young men and women were more concerned with getting present recognition and rewards than winning future esteem and security - the security of pensions. The result of this generation gap was many resignations as scholars found promotions slow and careful and their contemporaries doing better in the private sector. Worse, in recent years, there were fewer scholarship takers and new entrants into the service.

Sir, I hold Mr Tan Teck Chwee in the highest esteem and I reappointed him twice after 1975, first in 1980 and again in 1985, because he had outstanding qualities. He was absolutely superb in assessing and judging the ability, the character, the integrity, the motivation and the intrinsic worth of people. Despite this problem of slow speed of promotions, I concluded that he was the best man for the job. Of course, I had the help of Mr Hon Sui Sen when he was alive. He was a contemporary of Tan Teck Chwee in Raffles College. They were very close and they shared the same generational values. And he could persuade Tan Teck Chwee to go faster on promotions from time to time. But after he died, I found the job was much more difficult alone without Hon Sui Sen. So the last few years became difficult. I hope the new Chairman of PSC, having had many years as the Chief Executive of Overseas Union Bank, understands the market and understands the young that he has been recruiting in the OUB organization and that we will move in keeping with the times.

A good administration is essential but in a developing country, let me add, a good political leadership is critical. It is life and death. In a developed society, you can have mediocre indifferent Ministers and the country will get by. France had over 31 governments in the 13 years from 1945 to 1958, revolving doors. Every four to six months a government collapsed. But a good administration of the graduates of the Grande-ecole, the grand colleges that you get into only if you are from the very best and can get through a competitive examination. They kept the business of government going. But that was with Marshall plan, a settled population established, no basic contradictions in society. In a developing society, if you have a weak political leadership, the best of administrations will not rescue you.

So the first question we have to ask ourselves is: how do we continue to enjoy stability, good government, good policies, growth? We leave aside the civil service. I hope the necessary conditions are in place that we will continue to get into the public sector out of the best 100 each year- each year's cohort of 50,000 pupils-out of 100 of the best, the public sector should get at least 30 in all branches, whether in the administration, medicine, engineering, architecture, accountancy, law, etc. If we cannot, the Government will not function at a level it must in order to provide the private sector with the conditions to flourish. To have 30, we have to recruit about 50 and allow for an attrition of 20.

Sir, let me recount a conversation I had with an ASEAN Minister just over a year ago. He had just left office and he came to Singapore for the first time in many years as a private citizen - knocking around, golfing, shopping. At the end of his stay of over a week, he paid me a courtesy call that went on for about 50 minutes. I was asking him about his experience and he was unburdening himself of all the problems that they faced, and the root cause of these-a young society, too many conflicting goals, an unstable situation at the top; money politics, a very big problem. And he complimented me on having established a political culture in Singapore where people can go into politics without having to spend much money. They can get themselves elected without heavy financing and they will have no obligations after they are elected. No obligations to discharge, which is not the case in his country. And they can therefore, in Singapore, be above board, strictly impartial, because they have no favours to return. It was a very big tribute from a very experienced political leader, because it was sincere. He was out of office; he had nothing to gain. He was just letting his hair down.

The question is: how do you, the younger generation, continue this? Sir, by a curious turn of history, I have in this Chamber another man who was here in 1959, Dr Lee Siew-Choh. He will remember 1959-51 of us, totally different. And in his heart of hearts, he knows that Singapore has done well. Or he would not be here! And what is more, he knows, having been here now for three months debating and arguing, that this is by far a superior Chamber than it was in 1959. The quality of the debate, the quality of the minds surpasses that of 1959; integrity equals that of 1959; commitment could equal that of 1959. We will know when there is a real big explosion. I am convinced there are enough here who will survive and lead.

How did we get here-from a revoluntionary situation in 1959 to a settled, more or less steady state? We got here because we made changes as our situation and our society changed. Yes, I held down wages. When we ran into the British withdrawal, it was stupid and would have been lunatic not to have held down wages until the economy lifted. When it did in 1970, I made the first major revision, both public service and ministerial. I held mine down because I did not want any wrong ideas. And an adjustment every now and again. But the major ones were in the 1980s, because then the private sector had lifted off.

The Government used to be the biggest employer of graduates and of workers, easily 50% in the 1950s. Today, the private sector sets the pace. If you do not pay that wage, you get what is left behind.

Now, Sir, we will never have an end to this-how many times more does the man at the top get compared to the man at the bottom? In China, Chairman Mao (I don't know what the present rate is, but this was in 1985 and I did my calculations), he was paid some 38 times. But does that mean anything? Can you buy anything with Renminbi in the shops? If you are ill, an ambulance will take you to hospital. Which hospital? What surgeon? It is a very stratified system. If you are that rank, you are entitled to these shops, you are entitled to these services, you are entitled to these quarters. What does modernization mean?- That the system did not produce the best results for everybody. Everybody became poor-the iron rice bowl. And now we have the Soviet Union admitting that the system has failed-change!

If you are McEnroe, or Borg, or Boris Becker, and you go to Wimbledon and win. Between No. 1 and No. 2, there is a difference of multi-millions of dollars. Nobody wants No. 2's name on his racket or his shirt, or his shoes. So you will fight your guts out to get there. If you watched Navratilova, you will know that she is not going to give up the royalty on signing her name on rackets, tennis balls, and shoes, and shirts until age refuses to give her that bounce. Between her and the ball picker, what is the difference? Does anybody want to watch a ball picker play tennis, or how to pick balls? Who decides? Who decides what an Olympic champion gold medal is worth? It is the market. That is the system. You want maximum results, you let the market decide. Lou Retton, the American gymnast at Los Angeles made multi-millions just a few minutes on television a few nights of the week-jumping, bouncing, turning, twisting. And Lou Retton was what you want on your tracksuits or whatever gym kit you wear. If you are No. 2, it is not the same. How long you stay No 1, that is uncertain. They go very quickly. That is the market. You can get a gold medal for hurdles, like Moses did. Nobody wants his name. They are not interested in hurdles, they were not watching. One had multi-millions of followers, the other did not. Who is to judge? Both are gold medallists. Both went up the podium, both went up to the top, the band struck Star Spangled Banner for the USA, but the one who bounced away on the wooden horse and the parallel bars was worth many, many times more than the other.

Now, why is Mr Chiam doing so well in Singapore? It is the market. We are not giving him special government contracts to do. He does not need it. And I am cheered by the debate this morning because in spite of pretending he does not understand, he does in fact. He knows. Even Dr Lee Siew-Choh. He lacks that fire, that real outrage at the iniquity of it all. He knows it is fair.

This system has produced for Singapore the best of possible results. I have been in nine general elections, one before Dr Lee Siew-Choh got into this House; in 1955, the first elections ever. And this is the best Chamber since 1955. How to keep it that way? You have heard Goh Chok Tong tell you how much effort went into talent spotting and persuading. And he did much of it. Because once we move into the 1980s, the old guard like myself, we only met limited numbers of young scholars, potential candidates, maybe 50, 60 a year. But the younger generations are out-on walkabouts, meeting, talking, assessing. He has done it, 1980, 1984, 1988, with the team. Even after you persuade the man, it is a difficult problem because the wife has to be persuaded. And she does not want her family to be sacrificed. It is not just money. It is time, it is privacy, leisure together, holidays together. And in a small society like Singapore, 2.5 million in a compact area, 620 sq km, you knock into each other in the same clubs, restaurants, reunion dinners and, inevitably, lifestyles are compared, if not openly, mentally. It is in the nature of our society. Even their children, our children, they go to school, they compare lifestyles. What watches? I think it is a stupid thing to do, value watches. And the latest vogue, I am told, is: "Where did you go for your holidays? Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand?" That is passe. "Have you seen Disney World? Or Disneyland? Europe?" It is not easy in a developing country-and we still are, perhaps for another 10, 11, 12 years-to make a living in politics. It is a very difficult and complicated business.

Sir, we have heard references to Margaret Thatcher, to Albert Schweitzer. I did not know he was an organist. I think Mr Chiam got them mixed up. He was a doctor. But never mind.

Mr S. Dhanabalan: He was also an organist.

The Prime Minister: I stand corrected. But I do not think the Africans were interested in carrying heavy organs where he was!

Is it relevant to us? How do we move forward? To get good Ministers, you must have good MPs because they come from the MPs. Without good MPs, good Parliamentary Secretaries, good Senior Ministers of State, you do not have good Ministers. It is a progression.

Let me explain the difference. Margaret Thatcher, as Prime Minister, is paid half the salary of the Head of the Civil Service. The Head of the British Civil Service is paid, speaking from memory, some o90,000, (o89,000 something or the other), and Margaret Thatcher is paid half of that. The Head of the Civil Service gets the same pay as the Lord Chief Justice, which is the same pay as 5-star Field Marshalls, Admirals of the Fleet, Marshall of the Royal Air Force, only one at any one time. Then you retire but you remain a 5-star General or Admiral or whatever. That is a different system.

Sir John Hoskin, who was Margaret Thatcher's management consultant, in a speech to the Directors' Institute in the early 80s said that the talent of that government [of the first Margaret Thatcher government] was not enough to fill one multi-national management. But that is the system. The Permanent Secretaries are brighter, abler, than the Ministers, better minds, no doubts about it. You do not get into the British Civil Service unless you have got a First at Oxford or Cambridge or some top university and sit for a competitive examination. Your First just qualifies you to take the examination.

The theory was that you enter politics as a public service, that you should really have your own income. You are not living off your salary or your MP's allowance. And indeed such was the case right up till World War II, 1945, and I arrived in Britain in 1946, shortly after. A transformation took place and Britain has never ceased to change since then, in many ways for the better. Because that old class society was pushed aside. But they never changed this. It was politically too difficult. They had to keep up the myth that you entered public service to render service, that you have somehow a private income. They do not.

The Tories looked after their Ministers or their leaders through the old boy network. There are bankers, heads of various corporations. They look after them. The Labour Party has the union and co-op network. So they look after them.

You know the American system. When you are in office, you are in contact with all the decision makers. And then you leave. You are a lawyer, you can do it as a lawyer; or you join a firm of consultants and you do it as a lobbyist. Or you just go into Wall Street as David Stockman did, who was Reagan's first Budget Director. You write a book for US$2 million and you get a salary of a million dollars. So four years was worth it. But it is always changing. Because that is his price, after 4 years or 3 years. So why serve 8? The value in Wall Street does not go up. Maybe for Americans, it is a good system. But there is no way in which we can divorce the political leadership from the permanent service. It is linked in every country. I have looked into it, because I thought of delinking or decoupling.

I was reading this just yesterday in the International Herald Tribune centre page, by David S. Broder, one of the more thoughtful American columnists. He was talking about an unprecedented situation which has now arisen because their judges are about to leave. They cannot carry on. And the Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, called a press conference, unprecedented, to talk about the plight of the Federal District Judge in Laredo; Judge Kazen, in Texas. And it is representative of what is happening in America.

He was earning $120,000 a year in private practice when President Carter appointed him to the Bench 10 years ago. Today he is making $89,500, in inflation-shrunk dollars. And he said:

'I feel that serving my country for 10 years has cost my family $1 million. And what really hurts is when you're told: "You are in a fat, cushy job".' When he announced that he was looking for another job, that he may leave, he said:

'I started getting feelers for jobs starting around $200,000. ... so what the hell. I tell you, we're the lost battalion out here and .... I'm very frustrated, very bitter.'

Mr Broder says:

'Neither President Bush nor the Democratic leaders of Congress have stepped forward on the pay-raise issue since last month's fiasco.'

Those of you who followed the American brand of politics will know that they contrive a politically ingenious low-cost solution for giving everybody a pay rise. They had a commission to deliberate and recommend what people should be paid, President downwards, and everybody got about 50%, some 80%, pay rises. And all the President need to do is to sign it, present it to Congress and if both Houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, do not reject it, it is automatically law. In other words, if one body stays neutral and only one opposes, it becomes law.

The Senate is selected once in six years. So they said, "Well, we oppose." Not that they do not believe they ought to get a pay rise. But they said, "Well, the other chaps will not oppose and we'll all get our pay rise." Whereupon, the radio talk shows, DJs worked up feelings and everybody got inundated with letters. So they got nervous and the Speaker also got the wind up and he decided to call for a vote, overwhelmingly turned down. So both Houses turned it down. The commission's report was rejected. And the Judges were in there.

Now, the question is: should it not be decoupled? What is interesting is this. Mr Broder says:

'Many members of the commission favour "decoupling" congressional pay from that of judges and top executive-branch officials, and taking immediate steps to deal with the crises in the Judicial and the executive branches. But most Congressmen simply do not seem ready to take up the issue.'

Mr Broder goes on to say:

'Congress deserved - and deserves - a pay increase. But the crisis is greater in the other two branches, where salaries cannot be supplemented by honoraria or other outside earnings.' If you meet a group of lobbyists - let us say you are in the Banking Committee of the Senate or the House and you have a breakfast meeting with 20-30 of them and you say a few words - in fact, what they want is to get a few words into your ear to decide how you vote in the Committee. That is a lecture and you are entitled to $10,000, besides the breakfast. And so it goes on.

Do we want that? I believe, and I am encouraged by the mood this afternoon, that we are getting the message across. Let us be honest. Let us stop the hypocrisy. Let us be practical. Do you want good men? Can you afford not to have good men? Can you afford somebody coming here and telling you that the Ministers in the Singapore Government will not fill one MNC here, not equal to it? I say this without any immodesty-that if our Permanent Secretaries were better than us, we would have failed. They were competent men, able. But you need more than just ordinary competence. We were presented with unique problems that required a mind that gropes for the underside of a problem, turn it upside down and make an egg stand on its head. And I had five Ministers (and I can name them) who at any one time were better than their Permanent Secretaries-Goh Keng Swee, Hon Sui Sen, Toh Chin Chye, Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San. You can look up the records, look up their Permanent Secretaries. If these men here are only as good as their Permanent Secretaries, I would be worried. Because in a developing country situation, you need a leader of a Ministry or a department who not only understands the ordinary arguments for or against, but at the end of it says, "Look, will this work, given our circumstances? Never mind what the British, what the Australians, what the New Zealanders do. This is Singapore. Will it work in this situation?" And it is the leader with the political touch, with the rough and tumble of people, who has to decide.

We had to build an Army, Navy and Air Force from scratch from a population of 2.1-2.2 million, at the time we started. I took my best Minister and said, "I'd stop Finance. We'll make a living. Lim Kim San, you take over. Keep it going. Goh Keng Swee run it. Build it from scratch." His only experience was as a corporal in the Volunteers. But I would like to see any Chief of Staff stand up to him and argue on hardware, on strategy, on tactics. He taught himself. And to make sure that I understood him, he made sure that I also read at least the basics of what he has read. I was inundated. What is a company, what is a platoon, battalion, brigades, divisions, who does what? You get a Permanent Secretary to do that? We studied systems-Israel, Switzerland, Sweden. But finally we worked out our own, and it is working.

But the most difficult part is to find new Goh Keng Swees, new Hon Sui Sens, new Rajaratnams, Toh Chin Chyes, Lim Kim Sans. Because if you lose that sharp cutting edge, your Permanent Secretary cannot save you. It has happened over and over again. Why are we different? Because we fielded our best team in the political hot seat. It is much easier to be a Permanent Secretary. "Don't have to worry about answering either the Member for Potong Pasir or the Non-Constituency Member. These are my recommendations. They are logical. It's been done in these following countries. That is your choice, Minister. Choose." The theory that you can have anybody elected to office in Singapore and it will carry on is just stupendously stupid. It will not. And the Permanent Secretaries are the first ones to tell you that. They know. You can have it in Britain and America. Their leaders are good communicators. To be elected you have to be. But they make no bones about it. You see the way the American Press treated President Reagan. Hands off President, dozing off at Cabinet meetings, not interested, goes to sleep early. That is not the point. In that system, do you want to be President? For years you go around the country pumping hands, making speeches, to get support, and if you are no good at the television screen you are out. Good PR, then you win. The rest, you pick bright Secretaries who are prepared to give up their jobs. Like George Schultz who gave up his job as Chief Executive of Bechtel in California to become Secretary of State for 6(r) years. For a pittance. Yes, but then that is their system. I urge you to take a hard headed approach.

There are a few points which deserve reply. Is it an abandonment of the idealistic approach for the materialistic? No. It is an adaptation to new conditions. Tan Teck Chwee refused to accept that the younger generation had different options from his. They defeated him. Let me recount one example. He was able and determined. We were short of good teachers. So he persuaded a young man, a President's Scholar, to take up Mathematics, sent him to a top university and be a teacher. The young man came back and said, "I want to join the Administrative Service." He said, "No, teaching is a good profession. I started life as a teacher. You see where that got me?" So the young man became a teacher, not at the university but at a junior college. Within a few years the young man had arranged for somebody to buy him out. So we lost. We had a teacher for a paltry few years and a big company got a man of some worth. I can repeat that umpteen times, the market decides it. We had created a situation in which it is no longer possible to tell the young man: you will follow this. Indeed that was what was available to Tan Teck Chwee - there were two jobs in the Civil Service and only two a year. Other than that you are a teacher or you try and run a small shop. Chou En-lai, 100% and others 50%? Chou En-lai and China are in trouble. A generation that sacrificed everything, finds its children vulnerable to the good things in life, and finds their successor-generation also wanting the good life; and they do not know how to stamp out corruption. It is so vast. Anybody who goes to Hong Kong regularly, as I do, knows that if you want to do business you must learn to do what? The Hong Kong merchants and entrepreneurs arrange, they have to arrange, for many things, including the education of the top cadres with whom they deal, education of their children in America, because that is what they want. Says Dr Lee Siew-Choh, but that was only because they decided to follow capitalist methods, that in the days of Chairman Mao things were much better. That just is not true. In the days of Chairman Mao there were less opportunities because there were very few avenues for enterprise but the people who will return you, your discarded old sock or your ball pen, are specially selected to look after foreign guests, foreign visitors. We are all the product of our times and indeed not to recognize that would mean a collapse of what we have achieved so far.

Dr Lee says it is wrong to compare the public sector with the private sector. Are we differently wired in our minds? One does not need to eat, to live, to send his children to university? The other does? You are born differently, one AC, the other DC?

He talks glibly of British judges and QCs. I happen to know because that was my profession. You got a top QC to become a judge after he has had his innings at the Bar, and at the ripe old age or young age of 50+, before 60, he takes his last top income, tax free, and then goes on the Bench. That got cancelled when Labour got into office in the 1970's, and they had problems. So now they have upped the salaries and they give them handsome pensions. So you take on a judgeship and carry on till 75, and you live happily ever after and you live for a very long time on indexed pensions. But those are the values of another society.

I have tried to get people to be judges in Singapore. Again and again I poured through the list. It does matter, and to pretend that it does not is to make the system malfunction. In short, this will not be the last time you are going to face it. In three to four years time, Goh Chok Tong and his committee will have to find another 15 to 20 good men and women to replace those who are older, and amongst the 15 to 20 there should be three potential Ministers. In the end, if one survives the attrition, that is not bad, because there is no guarantee that because you are a successful executive, therefore, you are a successful Minister. They are different. Aptitudes are required. You have to be good plus a touch not only with a camera but with people.

Mr Chiam may not be able to add or subtract quickly, but he can get a pocket calculator to do that for him. But he knows that if he starts looking very sincere and raises his voice, then a lot of people in Potong Pasir will cheer for him, whatever he says. Our job is to slowly educate the people so that finally they know that this is all a charade, that this is a joke, that he is going through the motions. He cannot get anybody worthwhile to stand for elections for the SDP. He knows that. He has admitted that as much. It is a problem. Yes, I concede it is a problem for him as it is for us. More difficult for him, of course, because he is a committee of one; we are a committee of 20, 30, on our side. Dedication? Albert Schweitzer? Don't bother. Start off with a ball picker and maybe, if he picks good balls, you might make him into a tennis star for the SDP! Or better still, get a few good caddies, and you might turn up for the Singapore Open in golf. But for the PAP, before we take them in, we like those whose score should be at least below 80 for one round. Otherwise, don't try.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Chairman, during the debate on the budget statement I stated that I support the move to increase the salaries for the Ministers. We must change the strange mentality of some people like Mr Chiam See Tong and Dr Lee Siew-Choh of "wanting the horse to be good, yet not wanting the horse to eat the grass." If we want to attract talented people to serve the nation we must not expect the Ministers to make too much sacrifices. Today in the big companies and in the banks, the salaries of the Chief Executives are many times more than those of our Ministers. Most people feel that under such leadership if the company can prosper and do well, then the future is promising. As such, it will not only be good to the company, it will also benefit all the workers. To such people, paying high salaries to these executives is justificable! However, once we talk about increasing the Ministers' salaries, some people like Chiam See Tong and Lee Siew Choh will say that we should not talk about money. "If we talk about money we lose our feelings for each other." But we must not forget that the Ministers' duties and responsibilities are very heavy and difficult. They have to look after not just a company, a clinic or a law firm, but a country with 2.6 million people and the survival of the country. Let us just put aside their heavy responsibilities for the time being and just take a look at our reserves. We have $33.3 billion in our reserves, but now we are only increasing their salaries by $43 million. It is only 0.012% of our reserves. We must change this strange attitude of "No to Ministers' pay rise, but all right to an increase of salaries for others" in order to attract more talented people to serve the nation.

Mr Chairman, if we compare the value of our Singapore dollars which has been enhanced and strengthen from year to year and the interest enjoyed by our reserves, we would realize that 0.012% increase in the Minister's salary is indeed negligible! No doubt, in many countries, their Ministers' salaries are very low, yet their currencies are being devalued again and again, to the extent of 30 to 50%, in the end it is the people who suffer! In order to have an honest, frank and efficient government, I support the motion to increase the Ministers' salaries. However, I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister will reconsider the two following points:

First, the system of "make-up pay" to attract talents. Why don't we have a higher and uniform salary for Ministers to attract them, because with such a "make-up pay" it will result in a lack of uniformity in the Ministers' salaries and the difference can be very great. Although the second generation leaders are agreeable to this monetary incentive scheme of "giving heavy rewards to attract courageous people". I fear that the 3rd generation, 4th generation or even our future poliical leaders may, as a result of which be at odds with each other and be uncooperative with each other. There may even exist the feeling of being "lost". If there is such a phenomenon, then it will greatly reduce the cohesiveness among our Cabinet ministers, and it will do our nation no good.

Secondly, about the performance bonus of two months' salary to the Ministers, it may also give rise to some problems because if we award some ministers and do not award others, then there may be problems because performance appraisal is quite subjective. Because some human weaknesses, some Ministers may have some feeling of discontent and indirectly resulting in the lack of cohesiveness and coordination in the Cabinet. For this reason, I suggest that we award a fixed performance bonus to the Ministers. If possible, give the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Senior Ministers a fixed bonus of two months, 1(r) months bonus for the Ministers and one month for the Ministers of State. This is certainly better than causing bad feelings among the members in the Cabinet as a result of some subjective appraisal system. I believe, by so doing, we would be able to maintain the spirit of cooperation which we have enjoyed all along in the PAP Government. Thank you.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA. There was the PPSO (Preservation of Public Security Ordinance).

Mr Chiam See Tong: Splitting hairs.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am not splitting hairs. That is what he said-"the ISA was used as a trump card." These are his exact words. So he cannot deny that. Strange enough, Sir, in 1959 he stood as a PAP candidate and that was when the PAP came to power. However, in 1963, he led the Barisan Sosialis and I, for the first time, stood as a PAP candidate in the 1963 general elections. This has got something to do with what he said-"that he has never changed." I will show that he has changed.

In 1963, the results of the general elections showed that the Barisan captured only 13 of the 51 seats. They became an Opposition but the NCMP himself was not in this House. In 1966, the Barisan went out of Parliament and took up extra parliamentary struggle, and for some time the NCMP decided not to take part in elections. But strange enough in the 1970s, he stood again. But when he said he did not change, I do not believe him because in the 1988 general elections he led his Party into the Workers Party and stood as a Workers Party candidate. I leave it to the House to see whether what he said is correct or not.

But, Sir, let me come to the substance of today's debate. I have had a look at the last few copies of Hansard on salary increases for Ministers, MPs' allowance, judiciary and the lot. Therefore, I wish to commend the First Deputy Prime Minister for being frank and forthright in putting this problem in the right perspective by coming to grips with it and putting it to the nation. We all know that the second team led by the First Deputy Prime Minister-he was elected First Deputy Prime Minister after the 1984 elections by his peers and unanimously endorsed by all the PAP MPs-is now well placed to see Singapore through into the 21st century which is some 10 years or less to come.

Sir, in tabling the recommendations, effective from 1st April, the First Deputy Prime Minister pointed out the difficulty in recruiting fresh talents. By "fresh talents" I think he meant, amongst other things, getting younger men and women into the political leadership and that was the problem he and his team faced in the last two general elections.

In my view, these recommendations for a revision in the salaries have got something to do more with the building up of a third team. I have spoken to quite a number of Ministers whom I know very well. They are not very particular about the salary revision for themselves but I can foresee that the problem is getting the third team. Before coming to the third team, may I say something of the second team because I know quite a number of the Ministers who helped to form the second team.

If I recall to mind, in 1970, the PAP took on self-renewal, how to replace themselves by injecting fresh blood, better men and women into the Party. Looking at the second team, I would just like to describe a few of them. In 1972, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, a successful architect came in. So 1972-89, he and Dr Ahmad Mattar. In 1976, we had the First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. He was, I think, holding the post of Managing Director in Neptune Orient Lines and we also had the Minister for National Development, Mr Dhanabalan, who was Senior Executive Vice-President of the DBS. So 1976, two. Then in 1979, we have the Minister for Education, Dr Tony Tan, who was then General Manager of OCBC. Then, of course, in 1980 we had a couple more, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Prof. Jayakumar, who was also Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations when he gave up his professorship at the Law Faculty, and also the Minister for Communications and Information, Dr Yeo Ning Hong, who was holding one of the top posts in a multi-national company. If we add them together, the Front Bench has 13, there are six with the Prime Minister, who of course is from the first generation.

Sir, what I am trying to say is that this process of a self-renewal and a careful and cautious selection of a team takes a long time, more than 10 years, to get a second team in place. But, that is not the end of it. What is more important is how this team will gel to become one team and to lead the nation forward. In my view, the problem that the second team under the charge of the First Deputy Prime Minister, who will in time to come take over as Prime Minister, will then have to settle the problem of looking for a third team. I do not think that within a span of five-seven years he could get that third team in place. But if he could, as the Prime Minister has said, for Ministers of State up to Cabinet Minister, maybe with a low attrition, yes. But if the salary revision is not realistic enough to make it more bearable and more acceptable to those who want to come into the political leadership, I think it will be more than hypocritical of us to just ignore this change of time. Time continues to change. It is never static. Situations will change. Societies will change. But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation.

I fully subscribe to what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said earlier this afternoon, that he will take those suggestions and comments into consideration vis-a-vis the make-up pay, the performance bonus and so on. These are technicalities. I think what is important is to get that team and that is where we should never be deflected from. The third team is important. The dollars and cents, the technicalities of it, I think, are not. But I accept what he has brought up this afternoon. Thank you, Sir.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Clarification, Sir. Mr Ng Kah Ting mentioned something about my mistake concerning the PPSO and ISA. I believe he must know that the essence of the PPSO and ISA is the same-it is the special branch. I mentioned the ISA merely to make it easier for the people present here in the Chamber to understand what it is all about. The other thing he mentioned was that there were no trump cards being used. Maybe he has forgotten that Mr Lee Kuan Yew used the PPSO to arrest many of our colleagues in the Operation Cold Storage in which more than 140 or 150 of our leaders were arbitrarily arrested. And, of course, we found it very difficult after that.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that. That is why I have deliberately made that point.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: It is always easier to pass the buck.

The Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Chairman, Sir, several of the Members have laid stress on the importance of idealism as a value in public service. I agree with them. It is important-if we believe this is just a job to be done, we should not be here. And I think most of us would not be here were it not for a sense of service, mission, a sense of duty, something which has to be done. I say that not only of the Ministers but also of the MPs, and even of the Opposition MPS and the Non-Constituency MPs, who have clearly put considerable heart and soul into their political careers, successful or unsuccessful as they may have been.

So there is idealism. I do not think anybody in Singapore joins politics for salaries. I suspect in other countries too, they do not join politics for the salary; sometimes they do it because they mix business with politics. But that is an extra-curricular remuneration, not a formal salary; it does not apply in Singapore. In Singapore there are many easier ways of earning a living and having a peaceful life, doing well for oneself, without engaging in acrimonious discussions and soul-searching debates as to what is the right thing to do for the country.

Idealism is a good word. Will it, by itself, be a sufficient policy guide for establishing a workable system? I do not think so. Whether idealism, by itself, will bring in the right people into politics, is not a matter of theory and rhetoric; but is an empirical fact. If what you say is true, are the right people coming in?

Our society has changed. We are no longer in a revoluntion situation. We do not have riots and great uncertainty every day. Able young men do not fear for their entire futures, if they do not do something about the destiny of the nation. It is so peaceful that many people believe nothing need be done in order to maintain it like this. It will of its own accord sail on calmly, minus auto pilot, and never hit a rock.

In such an environment, nobody believes that Singapore's future depends on his entering politics or not entering politics. They have options. They can calculate. You have so many Ministers, why don't you continue? You are doing a reasonable job. From time to time, we may be unhappy with what you do, but overall, please carry on. Leave us to look after our own careers. We are grateful that you have created so many opportunities and so many attractive routes of advancement.

It is a very natural, reasonable, understandable human reaction. We see it each time we look for an MP. We see it even more each time we look for Ministers, and I think the Opposition Members know this. Dr Lee said, if we need good people in politics, why not get the old generation leaders back? Because that was a different generation, a different situation, different compulsions, and different results. But are the young men the same?

You have heard the Prime Minister talking about the Civil Service. The argument of service applies not just to politicians, but the civil servants too. It is the same argument - that civil servants ought to feel a sense of mission, purpose, making a difference; charting policies, being close to the centre of power, psychic pleasures and fulfilments, empty stomachs go unnoticed. If that were so, why are the civil servants leaving? Dr Ow earlier asked how many Permanent Secretaries have left-fortunately, none. But unfortunately there may not be many Permanent Secretaries left, because they are leaving long before they become Per- manent Secretaries or, for that matter, Deputy Secretaries. Likewise, with Judges. It is an honour to serve, yes. You have heard how it works in Britain. In Singapore, Mr Goh has shown you how the CJ ranks about 50th amongst lawyers, Judges rank about 80th, in terms of remuneration. So, what do we do? Have national service for lawyers? Draft them to serve as judges? We appoint Judicial Commissioners. Even Judicial Commissioners feel the same pressure to return to the Bar to practise, because under the rules after three years on the bench they can no longer practise. Therefore, "let us get back because, otherwise, I lose my ability to make a living for myself." That is why the Minister for Law some weeks ago informed the House that we are considering amending the Legal Profession Act to allow Judicial Commissioners to go back to practice, even after more than three years as JCs, provided they do not then appear before the court, because that is awkward - having sat on the Bench, to appear before ex colleagues and argue cases before them.

These are the individuals, this is the society, from which we have to find leaders. You may call it materialism. But it is the motivating force which has pushed Singapore forward and made Singapore different. Our people want to get ahead, they fight for the best for themselves and their family, and calculate their career options rationally. Therefore, we have growth and progress, and therefore we can afford to pay those whom we need to enter the public service.

Mr Chiam raised the question: What is the basis for paying those who enter the public service? I think he has a point. What the Minister can contribute is huge compared to what you can pay him. He makes one wrong decision, 30,000 workers will go unemployed for three or four years. We just had one recession. 30,000 times three or four years to one, and the NCMP cavils over salary ratio of 30:1. The contribution, and for that matter the potential subtraction from the national wealth and welfare, is enormous compared to what you can pay.

However, this is not an argument therefore to pay Ministers billions of dollars a year, or even millions of dollars a year. What is a fair basis? We believe the fair basis is, roughly speaking, opportunity cost. What is the man earning outside? How much can he earn? We offer him about that, probably a little less. He does not come in to get wealthy, but he comes in without suffering too much pain. Is it a ratio-30:1? Yes, as it is in China. But let me ask the question a different way. If workers had money to put into a bank, do they put the money into a bank whose managers is paid peanuts? Or should they put their money into a bank with a top manager paid, maybe as these figures show, $200,000 a month, in order that their money be well looked after and safe, and the workers' savings are protected? If that is so of their savings, what more of their future?

Other people have tried to limit the ratio of top to bottom salaries, Vietnam for one. I do not know if the NCMP might have read what one Vietnamese Minister said recently. It would have made painful reading for him, but I think it was Nguyen Van Linh in Delhi who said: "What's all this? People are criticizing us (speaking about Vietnam) for having differentials in salary. We have had 30 years of equality in salary, and all it is has led to is misery, stagnation and decay. So let's not talk about equality of salary." This is a Politburo member speaking, another fallen idol. Do we have to go through the same trauma to reach the same conclusion?

Some would object that if you pay Ministers the right pay, you might get the wrong men in. Maybe. Those who cannot make a living elsewhere would like to come in at that salary. But at least we will have the choice of turning them away and choosing the men who are fit to enter. If we pay peanuts, and why stop at whatever it is ($20,000 now), why not push it back to $2,000 and make a greater show of sacrifice? You will still find an applicant knocking at your door saying, "I would like to become a Minister." Do you take him for his great nobleness of heart? Or do you wonder why he needs a job? Should you not ask what he intends to do after becoming a Minister? There are countries where Ministers are paid very little. They have no shortage of applicants, nor do those who become Ministers particularly suffer from poverty.

So what should we do? I suggest the right thing to do is to be fair, and watch what the private sector offers. We do not have to match the top banker for all Ministers. But if we have to pay one key man to get him to serve , for example, as Minister for Finance, then even if we have to offer something like it, we should.

Several Members have spoken up against performance bonuses and make-up pay. We have discussed this in Cabinet. The First Deputy Prime Minister has asked me to explain this because he will speak about other subjects later. The Ministers work as a team. Everybody on the team performs and contributes. Those who do not should be out. But those who are in, while all work, not all carry equal load. It is a reality. I think it is known, it is acknowledged. And if we are honest with ourselves, it is so. Therefore, we need mechanisms to distinguish between those who carry the heavier loads and do more than the rest. Hence, promotion grades for the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministers of State and Ministers. Similarly, we have performance bonuses in order that in between promotions, and from year to year, we can make a distinction between the man who is doing all right and the person who is doing outstanding, but is not due for promotion yet.

Does it mean hard decisions? Yes. It is always awkward. But it is no more awkward than for Permanent Secretaries. They also have this official myth, if you like,that every Permanent Secretary is equal to every other Permanent Secretary. It does not matter whether the Ministry is huge or tiny, it is supposedly the same job, the same status, and the same importance. It is no different from distinguishing between officers on the General Staff, between the person who is in charge of operations, or plans, or manpower. There are differences in the responsibility, in the judgment required, in the size of the job. If we want civil servants to evaluate officers honestly, then politicians ought to have the courage and the integrity to have ourselves also similarly judged. I do not believe that either the Prime Minister or the First Deputy Prime Minister would have the slightest hesitation in implementing this scheme and judging his Ministers, to their faces. And I think, likewise, the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries are man enough to accept such assessments and know where they stand. To pretend otherwise is convenient, but I do not think it is honest.

As for make-up pay, there are circumstances when we will need it. In recent general elections, the only Ministers of State who have come in and received a pay rise are the ex -civil servants or ex-Army officers. Everybody else who has come from the private sector has done so at a pay cut, in some cases, a substantial pay out. All right, we have managed to do it with these few. Do we want to continue doing so?

We have revised the Minister of State's pay somewhat. But we cannot push it all the way up. Neither do we want to appoint such a person to be a Minister straightaway, because a successful executive might not make it as a Minister. So when he comes in as a Minister of State in his mid-30s or early 40s, make-up pay provides one way to bridge the gap and ease the transition.

The other circumstance in which we will need it is when we have a key Minister's post vacant and we must bring in somebody from the very top of the private sector pinnacle. We need a Minister for Finance. We need a Minister for Law. Not any Minister can do the job. You need in one case a lawyer, in the other somebody who is very familiar with the world of finance. And if he is anywhere on this table, how will you persuade him to enter? In fact, if he is not on this table, questions should be asked why we are taking him at all! Why should we, in order to accommodate such a person, correspondingly inflate every other Minister's salary to the same level? Is it necessary? Is it justifiable? We do not think so. Therefore, a system of make up pay is established. Of course, if we bring in a top banker and then leave him as Minister of State for two terms, say in the Ministry of Education or Law, questions might be raised why the Government is doing such a thing. Is he really worth all that money? But I do not foresee this Government acting in such an irrational way.

Finally, relativities with the Civil Service. The Prime Minister has already touched on this, so I do not want to go into detail. But there was a piece in the Sunday Times on 12th March by Tan Sai Siong, which said that basically civil servants were pencil sharpeners for Ministers. So why not just pay Ministers and skip the pencil sharpeners?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is true that in Singapore the Ministers take the lead and the civil servants provide the support. I think that is right, and it will continue. It can, provided we continue to get Ministers who are fit to give instructions to Permanent Secretaries. If the Minister is not fit to give instructions to his PS, the relationship will change overnight. The PS will not be making speeches here and neither are the same policies going to be presented, because if the speech cannot be made, the policy cannot be carried.

Having said that, it is important for Ministers to be backed up with a strong staff from the Permanent Secretaries downwards. They are not pencil sharpeners, but provide proper staff work, research and well-considered options. Then the political direction can be interpreted and implemented in sensible, rational ways, which will leave MPs with a minimum duty of writing letters to Ministers on behalf of their constituents. To do that, the Administrative Service cannot be at two-thirds strength. The Ministry of Trade and Industry cannot have Administrative Officers with an average seniority of 2(r) years, as it does today, and try to operate like MITI in Japan.

To change that, let us remunerate the officers correctly, promote them rightly, and bring the correct people in. One Member, I think Mr Peh Chin Hua, said that this is a policy of heavy rewards in order to find desperadoes: Zhong shang zhi xia bi you yong fu. I do not know if the interpreter gave you the same translation. But we are not looking for that. We are just looking for fair rewards, an adequate mix of incentives, so that despite the sacrifice and restrictions, some of the right people will come in, and give of their best for the benefit of all the rest of us.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: A clarification from the Minister, Sir?

The Chairman: Yes, all right.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: He has commented on what a Vietnamese Politburo leader has said. Would he also like to comment on what a Japanese economist and industrialist has said, namely, that Singapore is a country of high salaries and low wages?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no idea which Japanese said that. But I do know that in Japanese politics, money is not an insignificant factor. The Member might perchance have heard of Recruit Cosmos. That is such an awkward and prickly pear because it is only one pear out of a whole orchard full of such pears. That is how the whole system works. Politicians need to visit constituents, whether for funerals or weddings. Token contributions are essential. It is routine. If you attend a funeral, you bring bai jin. I do not know what they call it in Japanese. If you attend a wedding, a gift is in order. There are 130 million Japanese and about 300 Diet members. So each Diet member has 300,000 constituents, quite a fair number of weddings and funerals. Where does the Diet member get his white gold from? From his faction leader. Where does the faction leader get his resources from? His salary? In many ways. Fund-raising breakfasts for one. Recruit Cosmos was merely thought up as some of the more ingenious approaches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam and Dr Lee citied examples of advanced western democracies, the US, the UK, Japan. Each has it own problems. We had better find our own clean way to proceed.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to speak at length on the subject because it has been well debated and discussed. However, we owe Mr Chiam an answer. He has raised some queries and I should provide him with the information.

He asked three questions: what are the perks, if any, of Ministers in addition to their salaries? Secondly, are the salaries tax free? Thirdly, whether I can provide some figures of Minister's pay in UK and Australia. First, on the perks. Ministers do not enjoy perks other than the car allowance which is similar to the civil servants'. I do not know the exact formula. I think, it is two months of basic salary for every year of service, quite like the civil servants. But there are no other perks.

Salaries are taxable, like any employee's in Singapore. So whatever increase the salaries which Ministers may get as a result of the revision, a portion of this will go to tax. It goes back to the Government.

As for Ministers' pay in other countries, I did not provide them earlier because I thought they would not be relevant for our discussion. What Ministers get in each country depends on the political culture of the country. UK has a different culture; Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, they have different political cultures and the pay is therefore not really relevant to our discussion today. Anyway, if you have a good man available somewhere else, you cannot get hold of him, whatever his worth to us. But I will provide the figures since Mr Chiam has asked for them. I do not have the figure for Australia but I have it for Britain, Japan and some Asean countries. We do not know the supplementary income because in other countries they have other less obvious ways of remunerating the Ministers. The figures I am going to quote are published figures available from documented sources. Indonesia $1,700 p.m. Philippines $2,300 p.m. Thailand $5,000 p.m. Malaysia $6,700 p.m. Britain $10,000 p.m. Japan $31,000 p.m. You should ask yourself the reasons for the differences in pay in different countries and see whether the system in each of these countries applies to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am gratified by the overwhelming support given by Members of Parliament to the need for us to revise Ministers' salaries in order for us to have good men and women to carry on with the job which the Prime Minister is handing over to us. Personally, I feel it rather awkward that we should be talking about our own salaries. But I am not at all defensive on the need to revise salaries. We are doing this not for ourselves. The Ministers are already in Cabinet. We do not have to revise salaries for ourselves, but we have got to look forward.

Our main mission now is: how do we keep Singapore going after the Prime Minister steps down? That is my main preoccupation at this stage. Can we shoulder the burden of government and ensure that Singapore continues to prosper and grow for the benefit of Singaporeans? That is my number one worry. It is not just taking over from the Prime Minister, drawing a handsome salary and enjoying the power, the status and the prestige. It is what do we do from now on, and how do we discharge our responsibility to Singaporeans. I think the answer boils down to whether we can succeed in getting good Members of Parliament and from the Members of Parliament whether we can draw up a team that is as good as the Prime Minister's, if not better.

I will illustrate the importance of having good people in charge from the number of courtesy calls which foreign visitors made on me. Many of them have nothing to do with my Defence portfolio. They are trade and industry matters. For example, the President of a Japanese computer company and the President of an American Bank, asked to make a courtesy call on me. We discussed internal and regional situation and world events. Why did they want to call on me? And why did I want to see them? Each time such a foreign visitor makes a request, I will check first with the Ministry concerned as to whether I should see them or not. In these two cases, I was advised to see them because I was told that one has plans to extend his factories - he has more than one factory in Singapore-and the other his banking operations; he is thinking of making Singapore his regional headquarters. No decision has yet been taken as to whether they would or would not expand their presence in Singapore. We chatted for half an hour or so at the end of which they told me that they enjoyed being in Singapore, they have benefitted from their presence in Singapore, and they would like to extend their operations in Singapore. Why did they want to call on me? I think it is to size up whether the next person who takes over from the Prime Minister shares the same kind of outlook in economic philosophy, in political ideology, in dedication and motivation to serve the country, whether he can deliver the goods because they are going to sink in millions of dollars in Singapore. They want to know.

So what do I do from here? I do not believe in re-inventing the wheel all over. So I study the Prime Minister. Learn from his experience, how did he bring Singapore into today's state, how did he achieve progress for Singaporeans? The key lies in his having assembled a good team first for the Government and secondly, for the administration, that is the Civil Service. Of course, the Prime Minister has a commanding intellect, and is a man of exceptional ability. But despite his own ability and competence, he still needs to assemble a team of excellent administrators and dedicated and highly motivated Ministers. That is the key to his success, and I would be foolish if I did not follow the same formula. I believe that that is the key to Singapore's success and we have got to follow the same formula. In other words, target the top 0.001% or the top two or three Singaporeans per ª million Singaporeans to join us in Government. And of course also the others to join us in the Civil Service. If we do not not succeed in getting them to join us in Government and the Civil Service, I think we cannot succeed in carrying out our responsibility of bringing about a better life for Singaporeans. The Prime Minister mentioned Dr Goh, Lim Kim San, Hon Sui Sen, Mr Rajaratnam, Dr Toh Chin Chye. I have worked with Dr Goh Keng Swee, the late Hon Sui Sen and Lim Kim San. I know the quality of the men, not just in Cabinet; I was a civil servant at one time, working with them as my Ministers. I know that they are sharper than any Permanent Secretary and they did have very sharp Permanent Secretaries - Joe Pillay, Sim Kee Boon, Ngiam Tong Dow. But they were better than their Permanent Secretaries and they were also bolder. They were in a position to take decisions, innovate and they did their job beautifully.

We have got to find, as PM put it, another Goh Keng Swee, another Hon Sui Sen, and so on, and that is my job, as well as the job of my colleagues. The present Cabinet is not yet a complete team. There are still some empty slots. Prof. Jayakumar, for example, holds two portfolios: Minister for Law and Minister for Home Affairs, We have got to find a potential Minister for Law to succeed him or a potential Minister for Home Affairs to take over from him. Wong Kan Seng, two Ministries: Ministry of Community Development and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So likewise we have got to find a Minister who can take over one of his two Ministries.

I have been looking for people for the Party and for the Government, since 1976. Soon after I was elected, I got involved in this talent scouting. The Prime Minister wrote me a note right away: Do you know any people who could become Members of Parliament? So I learnt early the importance of getting good men and women to join us in Government and in Parliament. I have been at this for quite some time. It has not been easy, and it is not going to be easier.

My job now is not just to complete the team in Cabinet. It is also to look ahead and to ensure that there will be others coming forward to take over from us. Dr Richard Hu, I think is over 60 and many of us are getting on to 50, and in this process of learning how to govern, I can tell you that it is stupidity to think you can just get somebody elected, make him a Minister and he can govern effectively right away. It is not possible. I have been in this for quite some years. It takes many years for us to learn what government is all about and how to discharge our duties effectively and competently.

I take a practical approach. I recognize that idealism is very important and, in fact, it is important because all of us who are in government did not come in because of the salaries which we will get. There is a certain sense of mission in us and, as Mr Dhanabalan put it, this mission grows with time. When I got involved in 1976 at the invitation of Mr Hon Sui Sen, I do not quite understand what the job was all about. I did not feel that passionate about the job. Mr Hon asked me whether I could be considered as one of the candidates for the PAP. You know that before this I was not very keen on politics. I never took part in community service or join the PAP or what have you. But I asked myself: why did he ask me when there are others in Cabinet, there are so many others in the PAP, why did he ask me, a person who has not shown any interest in politics? I came to the conclusion that by the time he asked me, it meant that the Government would run into trouble unless people like myself made a contribution. I am not a natural politician but I believe that I have got to give my best to the country. It took me only three days to say yes. I said, "Yes, I will try. If I do not make a success of it, if I cannot succeed, let me know. I am prepared to leave the political scene." I give it a try and the more involved I got, the more strongly I feel that we have got to do our duty for Singaporeans. And one of these important jobs that I have got to do is to build a team to take over from the Prime Minister, and later to build a team to take over from us. If I can do this without having to offer high salaries, why should we offer an attractive salary? Why should we talk about market forces and so on? Just offer them a proper salary, one which is not much higher than what the workers earn, and they will come forward. Why are we being so stupid as to risk incurring political cost to revise salaries of office holders openly? Why do we do that? It is because we are now entering a different era. There is a vigorous private sector doing very well and Singaporeans in the private sector are earning handsome salaries. I know that many Singaporeans are reluctant to come in and I am not sure, as I said just now, even with the revision that we can get them. But I believe that we should revise the salaries not just because we need to minimize the financial sacrifice for them but to give a signal that we are doing all we can to minimize their sacrifice, and that they should come forward to help us discharge our responsibility to our country and people. If as a result of this discussion, we can find two or three potential Ministers to join us between now and the next election, this debate would have been worthwhile. We know that it is a great drain on our personal resources in terms of time which we have for ourselves and our family. I know that many of us will not like the glare of publicity, but what choice do we have if Singaporeans who are able and honest do not come forward to keep up the high standard of clean and effective Government. What choice do we have? Do we want to end up with a wrong Government with many of us becoming mere statistics of either being a foreign worker, an illegal immigrant, or worse, a refugee in some forgotten refugee camps. I think we cannot allow that. This discussion is in a sense to reach out to Singaporeans outside who can serve, whom we know have got the character attributes, the intellect, ability and motivation. If we can get them, I would regard today's discussion on the salary revision as a huge success. And that is what we are aiming for, get two or three more potential Ministers between now and the next election.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

The Chairman: Mr Chen, do you wish to speak on your next subject?

Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, I would like to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Order. Moment of Interruption.

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

The Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1989/90, and ask leave to sit again on Monday, 27th March 1989.

Mr Speaker: So be it.