CIVIL SERVICE SALARY REVISION

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Statement on salary revision. I have actually two points to raise with regard to this salary revision.

I support this revision because we must pay well to get the best. That is very simple and very fundamental. However, Singaporeans will look at the salary revision at the top end of the salary scales and wonder at the sums we will be paying our top civil servants and Ministers. It is therefore important that an explanation be given. What are the criteria that are used to arrive at such figures? What benchmark do we use to come to the figure of $38,799 for the top Staff Grade V, and our top Minister's salary of $33,261? I think an explanation is important. We must let Singaporeans know how we arrive at this salary.

The second point is that in the private sector, the top Executives are paid equivalent sums or more. In addition, they are given special perks like cars, drivers, expense accounts, club membership, and even share options. Do our top civil servants get similar perks? Some are wondering, because many of our top civil servants are actually sitting as directors in many of our statutory boards. Are they paid - they want to know - on top of this salary? Are they given other special allowances and also shares during flotation, for example, of Singapore Telecom (ST)? These are also perks. Therefore, I think it is important that the Minister should give us an explanation on these two points that I have raised.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement.

The nation's destiny is in the hands of a handful of selected leaders. Every decision they make affects the well-being of the whole nation, and that is why it has always been the PAP Government's policy to pick the most talented and dedicated persons to hold office. It has proven to be the right decision because Singapore has enjoyed continuous stability and prosperity since we gained independence.

But it has always been an uphill battle to induce the selected group of talented people to take up office. The reason is obvious. Not only must the office-holders possess the character and ability of the highest calibre, they must also be dedicated and uphold a high standard of integrity. On top of that, they have to make tremendous personal sacrifice. Unfortunately, the people who possess all these attributes are also relentlessly being sought after by the private sector. And in a buoyant economy like Singapore, the offer from the private sector is much more attractive and lucrative.

It is said that a political career is a calling and it has to be so, because it takes a special brand of people who possess this quality to come out to serve the nation. However, the reality is that, when confronted with alternative overwhelming attractive options from the private sector, it is difficult for anyone to ignore them when making a career decision.

Let us compare our Ministers' earnings with those in the private sector. Perhaps the nearest comparison can be made by comparing them with top bankers, CEOs, professionals, and top earners in the commercial sector. It is obvious that a great number of these people in this group enjoy a much higher earning than a Minister. If we were to be an investor in a listed company, we would not question the decision of the board of directors to spend more expense to engage a capable CEO to run the organisation, so that the company is well run, to make profit, and to ensure a high return on our investment. In this respect, Ministers and Ministers of State are not unlike chairmen and CEOs of large organisations, except that this organisation is Singapore Incorporated, and that instead of looking after a few shareholders, they are looking after the whole Singapore. Will it then be fair to remunerate our Ministers any less than the CEOs in the private sector?

It is important to ensure that Ministers and office-holders are being adequately rewarded. This is one of the ways to ensure that those in office can be completely dedicated and concentrate on the job without being unnecessarily distracted. And it is important to make it less difficult to induce young talent to take up office.

As I mentioned earlier, in Singapore the option is so great and abundant for those talented people that it would be very difficult to convince sufficient talented people to take up office and ensure the continuous prosperity and success of Singapore. Our Ministers have a strict standard to adhere to. What they earn is all transparent. And in order for Singapore to be continuously governed well, we should ensure a high standard of integrity and performance of our leaders. We have to be stringent but fair. I do not think anyone should begrudge our Ministers to be paid fairly. This is a small price to pay in return for the tremendous demand we expect of them.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the salary revision package for civil servants, judges and political appointments.

Sir, our civil service must constantly monitor salaries which are paid in the private sector and our civil service salaries must keep pace with the private sector salaries and the market rates. This is the only effective way to persuade honest, competent and committed men and women to take up a civil service career as well as to serve in the political leadership.

Sir, we have a transparent system. People can judge for themselves and can see for themselves what our Ministers and top political appointees are being paid. I do not think they enjoy any perks. Dr Tan Cheng Bock has asked the question. The Deputy Prime Minister will certainly answer his question.

Sir, in some countries, the salaries of Ministers appear to be small, but they enjoy substantial perks. This means that the total compensation package for them is very much more than it appears. We like everything to be transparent and people can examine what our top civil servants and Ministers are being paid.

Sir, we must therefore pay good salaries to get more committed and competent people to serve in our political appointments. Even with the proposed revision, they are paid less compared to top executives and professionals in the private sector. They have made an enormous sacrifice and it is only reasonable that we pay them a fair and equitable compensation.

Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the daily-rated employees and those in Division IV, to thank the Government for the adjustments to the maximum salary points of their salary scales. These adjustments are by some 8% to 28%. The public sector union leaders, the DRE leaders, have raised this with the Ministry of Finance, and I am glad that their views are being heard. The majority of the daily-rated employees are on the maximum of their salary scales and will therefore be able to enjoy some benefits arising from these adjustments.

Sir, for the Executive Officers, I am happy to note that the Executive Service will be restructured. It will now adopt a salary structure nearer the Professional Services salary scale. All graduates will now be recruited into Division I. I would like to seek a clarification. Will all graduates now in service be also upgraded to Division I? Perhaps the Government can answer this.

On the medical benefits scheme, I am glad that the Government has re-examined the impact of the revised medical benefits scheme on civil servants who are on the pension scheme. The payment of an additional 1% of their salary into their Medisave accounts after retirement will help them to meet the co-payment which they now have to bear. Sir, this 1%, however, benefits more those who are healthy and stay healthy. After retirement, the biggest worry of pensioners is falling sick and being hospitalised. They worry that they are likely to fall sick more frequently and that their medical bills are likely to be larger.

Sir, many pensionable officers prefer to stay on the existing medical benefits scheme. The public sector union leaders, on behalf of their members, have asked that the civil servants be given this choice. Can they be allowed to opt for the existing medical benefits scheme? I hope that the Government will re-examine this urgently to allow them and pensionable officers this option.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a few clarifications to make. The first one is: what is the additional expenditure that the Government will incur as a result of this revision exercise? How would this revision of salary affect the relativity of Government expenditure on manpower?

On the performance bonus at Annex C, I would like to know what is the rationale for the new performance bonus to be fixed at four months for the Prime Minister, while the Senior Minister, DPM, Ministers, enjoy a maximum of six months' bonus. What is the rationale for doing that? The next question is: what would be the basis for determining the performance bonus of zero month, one month, or six months?

And, lastly, I think the Government should make an international comparison of the salaries of political appointments, particularly of the Prime Minister, the Ministers and the Ministers of State, vis-a-vis other countries, so that Singaporeans will have an idea as to how much our political appointees are being paid.

Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak because the matter under discussion today is very important. It concerns the quality of the people we want in Government. I think that everybody should be quite clear about why these salary revisions are being made, so that no doubts are left in the minds of the public. There are only three points which I want to make with regard to the salary revision.

The first point, Sir, is that I have served in the Cabinet for 13 years from 1979 to 1991 when the Prime Minister kindly agreed to my request to step down so that I could return to OCBC and resume my banking career. I have worked with the Ministers closely, daily, for 13 years and I can say, from personal experience, that they are honourable people, and for anybody to question the motivation and intention of the Government in making this salary revision will be, to my mind, quite absurd.

Indeed, Sir, I am quite sure that in making the salary revision, the Ministers had in mind not so much the desire to increase their own salaries but the overwhelming need to ensure that the salaries paid in the public sector, to civil servants, to judges, to office-holders, are kept roughly in line with the salaries in the private sector so that the Government can always attract a continuing flow of talent. And attracting new talent is critical if the Government is to remain competent, fresh and active. So paying adequate salaries is just one way of helping the Government in its efforts to ensure that the public sector will not be starved of talent. Of course, we should not use high salaries as a means to attract people to public service, particularly, in the case of political appointments. One needs to have a sense of public duty, a sense of mission if you want to go into politics, whether as a Member of Parliament or as a full-time office-holder.

But it helps, Sir, for those who are serving in full-time office that they should be paid adequate salaries so that they can look after their families and they do not have to worry that their families will suffer as a consequence of their going into office. And this will help the Government, as I said, to attract good people to continue to serve in the public sector.

The second point, Sir, which I want to make is that we have never shied away from paying our Ministers and other office-holders openly. We have not adopted the practice, which is common in some countries, of making secret payments, or having undisclosed perks in order to compensate our Ministers adequately. This openness is very important because it forms the basis for the honest and corruption-free Government for which Singapore is admired throughout the world, and which forms the basis for our progress and prosperity. We should, therefore, in my view, continue with our present system of regularly revising the salaries of our civil servants and our political office-holders so that our reputation as a country which is free of corruption can be maintained.

Finally, Sir, we have to look at the revised salaries announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in perspective. The salaries of the top civil servants, Ministers and the other office-holders are not exorbitant. They are in line, in fact lower than the salaries which are paid to senior executives in the private sector. Indeed, a remisier today in a stock broking firm can, in a good month, earn more than what a Minister can earn in a whole year. And surely, the responsibility of a Minister in the Government, or a top civil servant, is much more than that of a stock broker, or of a senior executive in the private sector.

Let us, therefore, not begrudge this salary revision. Let us not be hypocritical about paying our Ministers, our civil servants, our office-holders, adequately and in line with the responsibilities which they carry. This revision in salaries is our investment in the future of Singapore.

I support the revision and I hope that all Members will do likewise.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Ministerial Statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, BG Lee Hsien Loong.

With our economic growth and the improving standard of living of our people, it is only wise and prudent for us to regularly revise the salaries of the civil servants in order to maintain a clean and efficient civil service. I am very glad to hear the Deputy Prime Minister saying that when the Government is looking after the civil servants they have not forgotten the Ministers who have contributed much to Singapore's progress. The talent and the character of our Ministers are well known. They are the top talents in the country but, in terms of salaries, they always lag far behind the CEOs of big corporations. This is a pity.

As I said way back in 1989 when we were revising the salaries of the Ministers, we cannot expect horses to run well while feeding them with less hay. We cannot attract good talents to become Ministers and yet refuse to pay them salaries which are comparable to or higher than those of the CEOs in the private sector. I am in the private sector, and I feel that it is very unfair to our Ministers, especially today, when Singapore is doing its best to seek the right people to go into politics.

Without a reasonable pay package, it will be very difficult to attract talents into politics, especially in Singapore. There is no reward which is capable of matching the contributions made by the Ministers to the country. If it is necessary to measure them in terms of value, then I can say that they not only live up to the value for money, they have also lived up to the value beyond money by the contributions they make to the country. We all know that in some countries, the Ministers' salaries may be much less than those of our Ministers. But their real income is much much more than those of our Ministers. This is a very unhealthy abnormality and it is not what Singaporeans would want to see happening in Singapore where we have a clean and efficient Government.

Today, our Government has provided Singapore and Singaporeans with an "invisible gold credit card". So when Singaporeans travel overseas they enjoy great convenience. Wherever Singaporeans go, whether on travel or on business, they get the respect from people outside Singapore. The people outside regard Singaporeans as a people who are creditable, who are trustworthy, who are honest and they want to do business with us. This is helpful in providing us with the kind of convenience to develop our "second wing". Many CEOs of large companies, because of this "invisible gold credit card" provided by the Government, earn a lot of overseas contracts and make a lot of money for their companies. While Singaporeans are enjoying this "invisible gold credit card", they should not forget the isssuers of such cards, ie, the Ministers. These are the Ministers who have contributed to make this possible. They make contributions to the country so that we are enjoying what we are enjoying today. I hope that we can adjust the salaries of the Ministers regularly and not just once in a long while.

I support the statement.

Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tampines GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the salary revision announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Mr Low Thia Khiang has raised only a number of clarifications, I do not wish to state my reasons as my colleagues have already mentioned in their support of the revision. If I say more, it appears very defensive. So I shall like to make only two suggestions for the Deputy Prime Minister to consider.

First, it relates to the salaries of Superscale officers. Since these officers do not have regular or annual adjustments of salaries, I think it is inevitable that the increase once every four or five years seems to be very large. And these will be the two salary scales, that of our office-holders as well as the Superscale officers, which the public will perceive as very extensive salary revisions. But, in fact, if you annualize it, it is not so. This being the case, I see no reason why it must be done in this manner. Is it not possible for the Government to consider changing this system of remuneration or compensation of our senior officers to allow for some sort of annual or regular adjustments of salaries to be in line with, maybe, those on the lower scales? This will make it less contentious and does not make the increase, coming once every four or five years, seems very large.

The second point also leads me to make a similar proposal for our office-holders. Our system is very transparent, as has already been made clear by my colleagues. There are no hidden perks in the system. It is straightforward salary. But this being the case, perhaps we should consider establishing some form of a machinery or commission to do reviews of the salaries of our office-holders on a regular basis. Of course, as long as this commission's reports are published, they will be picked up by the media, by the Opposition, or by anyone in Singapore, and I see no reason why we need to come back to Parliament every few years on this matter.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister.

First of all, I like to say that I am very happy with the Government's decision to revise the salaries for civil servants and political leaders as announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. This is an overall salary revision. Civil servants from Superscale officers down to Division IV officers will benefit from this revision, particularly for Division IV officers who will get a revision of between 8% and 28%. I think this is very reasonable.

However, this salary revision is made in conjunction with a revision in medical benefits. So I would support the call by our union leaders that the Government should allow the pensioners an option to decide whether they want to remain in the existing salary scheme or to accept the new salary scheme. In other words, they should be given a choice to remain in the old scheme or to get into the new scheme. I believe if we give them this option, they should be very happy and be satisfied with it.

As for the salary scheme for the quasi-government departments and statutory boards, I think they should have more flexibility in this aspect. Because in these organisations, many of their activities are run along the lines of the private sector. I think they should be given more flexibility, especially in salary structure and the award of bonus to their employees.

Another point which I would like to raise is with regard to the salaries of our Ministers. I support the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, many people have the misconception that our Singapore Ministers are over-paid. In fact, in Singapore, where we give reward according to merit, many Chief Executive Officers of big companies are drawing salaries of more than $1 million a year. So if we compare our Minister's salary of $20,000-$30,000 a month to this $1 million salary of the CEOs, I think the difference is very obvious.

Of course, in other countries, the political leaders' salaries may not be as high as ours, but they enjoy a lot of perks. For example, they are given free housing, servants, cars, drivers, overseas holidays for the whole family and entertainment allowance. From what I know, in one of our neighbouring countries, each Minister is given three servants and his entertainment allowance is more than 10 times the annual salary of our Ministers. Of course, I do not encourage our political leaders to be lavish and waste our people's money. The PAP Government's traditional principle and image of honesty and integrity must be maintained.

However, in Singapore, our political leaders have only a salary with no other benefits. For example, they have to pay for their own COEs, CBD, parking and other miscellaneous charges. I think there are some financial pressure on them. Some people have asked me: why is it that our Ministers have to pay for their own COE, CBD and parking charges? One day, a worker was queuing up to buy a CBD area licence for the month and he was very surprised to find that a Minister was also in the queue buying the CBD area licence. He asked me why the Minister is not given free access to CBD. I said it is a right policy. The Minister who introduced it should also abide by the rules.

In order to attract more talents into the Civil Service and politics to help in the running of our country, I think we should give them sufficient encouragement and rewards. Because, on the one hand, we want them to maintain the tradition of honesty and integrity. On the other hand, we must also give their families the security of a certain standard of living. I think we should consider giving them better remuneration. Perhaps we should revise the salaries of our civil servants and Ministers more frequently, and not just once in a long while.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think our Prime Minister and our Ministers must be paid well and, in Singapore, we are doing the right thing in revising their salary scales upwards. But I find it puzzling and a little demeaning that we must talk about how much remisiers and other people in the private sector earn. We must pay our Ministers a very good salary so that they and their families can live well. But the motivation for becoming leaders should be partly altruistic. Furthermore, the respect and recognition given to our leaders far outweigh what our CEOs and our remisiers get in our society. I think there is no need to justify the pay increase for our Ministers with comparison to the private sector. There is no need to be defensive.

On another point, Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Deputy Prime Minister has said, civil servants expect to be paid fair wages, commensurate with their responsibilities. And as the total pay package includes medical benefits, will he consider giving a higher pay rise to female civil servants to make up for their lower medical benefits? I am sure we also want to stem the possible exodus of female civil servants from the public to the private sector. And if we do not pay equal wages for equal work, which is a principle adopted in the civil service since 1962, then there will be dissatisfaction among the female civil servants and this will lead to lower work morale and possible resignations from the public sector.

Furthermore, in Singapore, we are known to mean what we say and therefore I think it is high time the civil service subscribed completely to the principle of equal pay for equal work for both men and women.

Dr Toh Keng Kiat (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter. A friend of mine who is a banker gave me the profile of the people who have been buying bungalows developed by his bank somewhere in Holland Road in Singapore. The bungalows cost $6-$7 million each. The profile of a large number of prospective buyers are men who are less than 40 years of age, who drive Lexuses, who do not require end financing or mortgaging for these bungalows and by profession are either Simex traders or stockbrokers, both of whom have had a bumper harvest this year.

Unlike Dr Soin, I am not going to compare our Cabinet Ministers with the stockbrokers and bankers, but surely those who are responsible for creating the economic and political environment for these people to enjoy what they are enjoying and for other Singaporeans to do so, should be adequately compensated for whatever sacrifices they have made to the State and country. I therefore support the proposal for the salary revision.

There are a few matters which I would like to raise and these concern the pensioners. When the Finance Minister announced the new health package at our last sitting, several people who are near retirement called me up, especially those who are within a year or two of their retirement. They were upset, disappointed and felt let down, because they felt that after a whole life-time of dedicated service to Singapore, they now have their benefits removed from them. So I am really pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that this has been addressed and they will get an additional 1% paid into their Medisave accounts. But under the old pension scheme, their spouses and dependants enjoy medical benefits. What I want to know is: will this still apply now?

The other matter, of course, is whether they can be given the option to retain their old benefits under the old contractual terms. For some of them, this is relevant as the prospect of a long life may not be there because of existing sickness.

The other problem, of course, concerns health care workers which has not been addressed. Some of these people have expressed dismay over the fact that free medical benefits have now been removed from them. Their worries about catching some infectious disease, some of which are still not curable like AIDS, are real. In order to make up for this, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether some form of compensation like hazard money can be paid into their Medisave accounts in addition to the 1%, so that this problem can be addressed?

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join other Members in this House to support the salary revision announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister that he discloses what the gross salary would be with this new revision.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, like others before me, I also support the proposed salary revision. To be competitive with the market and to bring salary levels for civil servants closer to market levels is only right. I do not think anybody would argue with that. However, somehow or rather, the same feeling does not extend to Ministers and office holders. Somehow or rather, the feeling is that for them to get a high salary increment or rather the appropriate salary increment is not appropriate. I suppose it is partly because they are the persons making the decisions and partly because the feeling is that politics is a calling, as one Minister has said earlier, it is like entering a monastery and therefore money and salary are the least important factors of all.

Sir, while I agree that money should not be the main factor for political office holders, I would like to say that in this age and day, I doubt very much that there would be any person of a sufficiently high integrity who will be willing to be grossly underpaid as a Minister in any country. Even if such a person exists, I wonder if such a person has the qualities to do the job of managing a modern economy.

Sir, the eloquence and ability to attract votes are only the first step in a difficult task towards an effective and efficient government. After the euphoria of an election victory comes the hard work of managing a modern industrial state. In this respect, I think whatever may be levelled at the PAP, nobody can say that the People's Action Party Government has not done a good job of governing Singapore. So for all its worth, may I say that whatever increases in salary to our Ministers, political office holders and civil servants, they deserve every cent of it. Let us not begrudge them their due increases. Let us instead be grateful that they have done a jolly good job and hope that they will continue to do so in the future.

Sir, if you look at the increases, although they have been amply explained by the Deputy Prime Minister, they seem to be pretty hefty. But I suppose, like the Deputy Prime Minister has said, it is partly to compensate for the reduction in medical benefits. However, I am not too sure that this new system of increased salaries and lower medical benefits is accepted by all the civil servants. I would like to suggest to the Government to break the proposed increases into two components: one, to meet closer to market levels; and, two, to compensate the reduction in medical benefits. In this way, the Government can offer to all civil servants the option of choosing one or the other: (1) the full increase and reduced medical benefits, or (2) a smaller increase and retaining the existing medical benefits. If the Government is correct in saying that the increases more than compensate the cut-back in medical benefits, then logically the majority will opt for the full increases and reduced medical benefits, thereby achieving the Government's aims.

Sir, we must also not forget that whatever the Deputy Prime Minister may say, these increases will also set new benchmarks for salary increases in the private sector. After all, the Government, the public sector, is the largest employer in Singapore and the private sector does look at the trends set by the public sector. However, because the medical benefits in the private sector may be different from that of the public sector, the percentages that have been shown may be too high a benchmark for the private sector. Hence, a breakdown into these two components for every salary level may be appropriate for the reasons I have outlined above.

Sir, again, I must add that I support the proposals.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, the Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned that additional salary adjustment to offset the impact of the revised medical benefits package averages 0.5% for Division I and II officers and 1% for Division III and Division IV officers and DREs. He further said that the offset is sufficient as the higher co-payments will amount to only an extra 0.2% of Division I and II salaries and 0.5% of Division III, Division IV and DRE salaries. For those who do not fall sick, the offset is an additional income. But no one will know when he or she will fall sick and they therefore need to have the assurance that they can cope with the co-payment when they do. This is where insurance comes in. For hospitalisation, it is true that with Medisave and MediShield, there should be no problem for them to cope. But public sector employees are also concerned with whether they can cope with outpatient payments. This is especially so for those low income workers who may not have the cash to pay for certain outpatient treatments.

There is therefore a need to look into providing insurance or health care plans for outpatient care for civil servants. Government should therefore look into providing the civil servant with an alternative of getting outpatient care. One suggestion is for Government to pay, say, 1% of the salary into his Medisave in lieu of benefits in kind for outpatient care and allow him to purchase an approved health care plan encompassing both outpatient and hospitalisation benefits. The Managed Healthcare System (MHS) plan which NTUC is working on hopes to provide civil servants the cover that they need for both outpatient treatment and hospitalisation. I hope the Minister will look into my suggestion.

Sir, I support the salary revision.

Mr Chia Shi Teck: Sir, principally, I support this pay increase put up by the Deputy Prime Minister. But I want to ask a few points. The first point is whether we are sending out the wrong message if basic wages go up above productivity. We are asking the work force to negotiate for increments below productivity. So how do we measure productivity in relation to the upper strata workers?

In so far as the package is concerned, I share the view raised by Mr Das. This is the basic wage. I suppose there is something like another 30% added to the package here. I may be wrong. But even taking the 30%, for a Superscale C Permanent Secretary earning $12,000 plus a month, if you add 30% times 16, $250,000 is very fair, if you compare to the private sector. Here the worry is, of course, as Mr Heng said earlier, the pressure to look at the total package and for the Government to compare with the private sector. We may scale ourselves out of the world market.

A better way in future might be to have a more flexible wage component where bonuses could go up to as high as 12 months, instead of six months, and the basic component may be kept lower, so that in bad years we need not be stuck with high basic wages. I think that is the principle that we are asking the unions to accept. My proposal is actually for the bonus component to go up to as high as 12 months but keep the basic wages lower. I agree with Mr Chng that if we annualize the whole thing, maybe the increment is not that huge. So why do we want to increase salaries only after such a long period of time? But if we have more flexibility on the bonus component, the exercise will be easier, and the public sector need not compete with the private sector.

I also agree that the Prime Minister's performance bonus should not be fixed at four months. If the Deputy Prime Minister and all the others get more than four months, I think the Prime Minister deserves more.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, I declare my interest as an employee of a statutory board who might possibly benefit from the increases.

It is always very difficult for a board of directors to set their own pay because people will say that they have their own personal interest involved. So either they will over-pay themselves or they will under-pay themselves. I agree entirely with the Government's philosophy that if you want a good civil service, and Singapore's prosperity depends on an excellent civil service, then you must pay the going rate. To expect people to be altruistic and join the civil service is to be unrealistic.

When it comes to Minister's pay, for some reason, people expect more altruism. We have seen in other countries, when Parliament debates Ministers' pay or Parliamentarians' pay, there is an enormous amount of cynicism generated. If you look, for example, the report of recent debates in the UK House of Commons, some newspapers were saying that Parliamentarians were standing up telling each other how good a job they did. This is the problem when a body sets its own pay.

For Singaporeans, I think the basic question is: do we think our Ministers are worth it? This is really the basic question. In order for us to make this kind of decision, I think it is necessary that we should have sufficient information. Dr Tan has already asked for the criteria to be made transparent. I think it is also necessary, if it is possible for us, to have the figures. Could we see how the private sector pay has been increasing in the last few years? What was the Ministers' pay in comparison to the private sector pay at the last revision and what is it now before the revision? I think this will help Singaporeans to keep a sense of perspective.

For many people, the sums that we are talking about are sums that are beyond their imagination. A person who is a clerk in an office cannot imagine what a person could do with $30,000 a month. And to tell him that this is less than the million dollars that a CEO takes does not mean very much to him. So we have to give the information to people to show them that there are relativities.

For the long term, there will always be a certain amount of cynicism. Many people will say, "Look, this is a Government of highly paid people. Therefore, they keep telling everyone else that market forces should drive everything." I think you will find that very common sentiment and no matter how much information you give to people there is always that emotional problem that people have. In the long term, may I suggest that either some fixed formula or some indexing, or some acceptable formula, be developed so that you do not have a real subjective element.

Alternatively, why not let the Elected President have a veto over Ministerial and civil service pay? I make this suggestion because the Elected President has a direct mandate from the people now to ensure fiscal prudence in Singapore. It may not be a very big thing, but it may show that the people in charge are not looking after themselves alone. They are willing to subject their pay increases to independent scrutiny.

Personally, I think the increases that are suggested for the Ministers and the civil service are reasonable. I think they deserve what they get. But I do not speak for every Singaporean and I think ultimately you have to convince most Singaporeans that the Government that they have is worth what they are being paid.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would support the salary increases for the civil servants, but for the Ministers' salary increase, I think it is very difficult for a man from the grassroots to straightaway agree with whatever has been argued in the Statement that has been presented. As Members have spoken, we are looking at the other end of the telescope. We are comparing Ministers' pay to the best paid people in Singapore, and even not at the best time, because we know that last year was a bumper year for the stock market and we cannot take the remisier's salary and compare. Anyway, most speakers are referring to what the stockbrokers have been getting. In any event, the main principle of pegging the Ministers' pay to what other CEOs are getting in the market is, of course, one practical way out. But still we have to build a system where there is a sense of mission, a sense of altruism, and a sense of commitment. Ultimately, that will have to be our aim. I would think this is only a temporary measure. I hope it will be a temporary measure. Because in time to come, people who want to serve the nation cannot look to the pay alone. We are serving the people. The man-in-the-street is earning one-thirtieth or perhaps a pittance compared to what the Ministers are getting. As Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon has pointed out, it is difficult for them to comprehend. It is difficult for them to understand. A worker has to work 30 months whereas a Minister only works for one month.

An hon. Member: What about a lawyer?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Then the Minister should become a lawyer and not go into politics.

We have a transparent system. It is true that it is working well. In 1985, the Senior Minister put it very succinctly: Anyone coming to Singapore would be very impressed. The system works. At least for the last 30 years, Ministers have been doing well in Singapore under the present system.

But in the long term, the Government has to account to the people and the only way the Government can account to the people is to have an equally good Opposition. In the long term, the country must make sure that it has a viable and good Opposition. We cannot depend on one party alone. This is my point of view. People may differ with me. They have their right to differ. But I would say that the best way to check the Government is not from within the Government. There must be some institutionalised good Opposition in Singapore. I see nothing in this Statement to provide incentives for the Opposition. I know this is so in England. I am not asking for myself. The Government is talking about pegging a person's worth to the market value. I think if you want to attract good people into the Opposition, there must be a scheme to say that good Opposition Members will be equally remunerated. Otherwise, how can we attract good people towards the Opposition?

An hon. Member: You are here!

Mr Chiam See Tong: This present system is not perfect. Look at Teh Cheang Wan. What had happened? Despite his high pay, he was still tempted to be corrupt. So corruption is not necessarily prevented if you just have good pay alone. If there are more scrutiny and more checks, there will be less chance of corruption. Therefore, in this light, I think the Government should look at the long term to make sure that there is good Opposition in Singapore.

The other two little points that I would like to make are in regard to two classes of employees, ie, the teachers and the nurses. I notice that the overall increase in the Education Service is only 7%. We know that the Education Service is losing a lot of men teachers. There is a big proportion of teachers who are women. In fact, it is quite lopsided. There have been comments that it will not be good for our children if they are influenced only by one sex. I am not demeaning women. I think there must be a balance. Probably the pay is not lucrative enough that good people are not being attracted to the teaching service. Because of that, a separate industry has developed in Singapore - the private tuition industry. Why is that so? It is probably that the Education Service is not attracting enough good teachers to make sure that they do not need private tuition. But that is not the position at the moment. Perhaps the Minister can look into this in regard to the Education Service.

The other group of people who have complained that they are poorly paid for their services rendered to Singapore are the nurses. If I am not mistaken, I think they are in Division IV. I hope the Minister would look into the salary scale for nurses because I know that many are in fact leaving the service and going into the private sector. In fact, they are also seeking jobs abroad which are more lucrative.