After much procrastination, here’s my first entry on the ministerial pay hike in 2007. Indeed, this issue has literally been debated to death but I didn’t really pen my thoughts down.
Thanks to “Singapore Politics” blog, I was spurred to write a comment to his recent entry post.
My inane comment:
I cannot deny that Singapore is generally a well-run country with a government that has been largely corruption free (or least it has not been proven otherwise yet).
However, I disagree with your main point which is that because there is “competition from the real world”, we must peg our ministerial pay to the top salaries.
My main contention is how much of this competition really exist. Forgive me for my ignorance but it would delight me greatly to be informed of the list of politicians that exhibit this purported mobility between the private and public sector.
I admit I’m largely basing my conclusion from my potentially skewed view of the public sector, in which majority of those who rise in ranks are people with incredible academic background (aka scholars). Yes, I am doubtful of the number of people with high flying careers in private sector were necessarily scholars.
On a personal note, I also didn’t like your presumption that England would pay top money for Lee Kuan Yew or China for Goh Chok Tong for that matter. A successful minister in one country does not necessarily translate instant results for another.
My background on the history of Singapore is a little weak on this, but my impression from the various numbers of articles I’ve read is that the British did play a huge role in ensuring the survival of Singapore.
I’m not trying to totally discredit the old guards of PAP but I am uncomfortable when PAP claim that they single-handedly built up Singapore. The history of Singapore is far more convoluted than most would know, with numerous factors shaping this island-state. (Quick Tidbit: The late David Marshall first mooted the CPF plan for Singaporean workers.)
Okay, I’ve digressed. :p
Back to the issue, even if the pay hike does attract ministers who are “top talent” from the private sector, I am not convinced it would ultimately be better for Singaporeans.
Quoted from “Be mindful of the affective gap By Catherine Lim”
“For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite – raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.
Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material. To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains.”
The shortest and quickest plan to chart continual unsurpassed growth for the Singapore Inc. might not mean that Singaporeans get to taste fruit of their labour. Just consult the employees working in world’s largest retailer and the second largest corporation, Wal-Mart Inc, it’s almost self-explanatory.
Ultimately, I do not want my ministers to be so far-sighted, that he is not myopic enough to focus on me, the Singaporean on the ground.
People can be really selfish huh… :p
No Comments Yet
No comments yet.
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
