So how much should Ministers be paid?

There has been a lot of talk recently about Ministers' pay following remarks made by PM at his swearing-in ceremony on 21 May. This issue has been hot on voter's minds at the recent Elections and is undoubtedly one of the issues high on the agenda for the Government and the PAP. Are our Ministers really paid too much? Is there no justification for them earning millions of dollars each year?

The argument put forward by the Government is that a higher pay would attract the best brains in the country and the private sector by pegging Ministers' pay to the top earners in the private sector. The second reason is that if Ministers are paid well, they are less likely to be corrupted. How true then is this argument and do the figures really tally?

I have a couple of points to make on the argument above. First, private sector salaries are not fixed and rather they fluctuate with economic conditions and companies performance. For example, the Report on Wages in Singapore published by MOM revealed that wages in 2009 fell from 2008 in light of the global economic slowdown. In fact, if one were to look at the 20-year wage change series given in the report, private sector salaries have been anything but constant, with real total wages falling by as much as 6% over the last decade. A junior minister in Cabinet makes over $1 million a year. How then are we to know the 'opportunity cost' for the junior minister if he were to take up a job in the private sector? Even with today's burgeoning corporate salaries, $1 million a year is a tough call.

My second point is this: are such high salaries required to prevent corruption? According to Transparency International Corruption Perception Index for 2010, Singapore ranks joint first globally along with Denmark and New Zealand. Finland and Sweden follow behind joint fourth. Nevertheless, the salaries of Ministers in these countries are significantly lower than what we pay our Ministers in Singapore. According to an article in the Economist, Ministers in New Zealand are paid just over US$270,000. Is there a reason why these countries have been able to stay incorruptible with such relatively low levels of wages for politicians?

The magic formula for Ministers' salaries in Singapore is elusive in my view. The current approach surely needs rethinking. It needs to be one that is more in touch with people's earning capacity today, one that is reflective of Ministers' performance and citizens' satisfaction with the Government. Of course it is easy to pen these suggestions but actually getting around to implementing it is another thing.  

From 1982 to 2011

I was preparing for my exams when i chanced across the following quote:

‘Every time anybody starts anything which will unwind or unravel this orderly, organised, sensible, rational society and make it, irrational and emotional, I put a stop to it and without hesitation.’ – Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore National Day Speech, May 1982.


The political landscape has changed significantly in Singapore since 1982. I fervently believe that Singaporeans will always be indebted to Mr LKY, whether they may be of the first generation or subsequent generations. Mr LKY has laid the groundwork for what Singapore is today and he has without a doubt left a lasting legacy.


Nevertheless, i feel that because our political landscape today has changed so much especially after the recent Elections, Mr Lee's above quote may be difficult to be accepted by many Singaporeans today especially the younger segment of the population. I think that this epitomises the change of guard from Mr Lee's generation to the 3rd generation PAP. As someone cognisant of the fragile environment we have in and outside our borders, i still whole-heartedly agree with the intention of Mr Lee's quote above. The approach nonetheless needs to evolve and i hope that the current transformation of politics in Singapore continues to be constructive and beneficial for our future generations.

Community Project in southern Morocco

My friend and classmate at Oxford, Harsh, will be embarking on a community-initiated development project in Morocco. He will be part of team of volunteers working for 3 weeks in the Zagora province of southern Morocco with Oxford Development Abroad. They are currently raising funds to construct a fence around a school and each have a target of £750, all of which goes towards construction materials and hiring local workers. 


I think this is a fantastic initiative and i kindly ask you to consider giving something. Any contribution counts! The link is http://www.justgiving.com/Harsh-Sahni.


cheers,
Jordan

Responsiveness or the lack thereof?

I thought i'd write a short note about something that struck me after reading the Straits Times today on the problem with air-conditioners at Resorts World Sentosa (RWS). According to the ST, two shows had to be cancelled and restaurants in the building had to scramble to put in place temporary cooling measures for patrons. What struck me however were the remarks made by the RWS spokesperson:  'These changes should have minimal impact on our normal resort operations.'

This made me think about the Government's response to citizens after the General Elections and how there had been a noticeable push since May 7 to transform and make the PAP more responsive to citizen's needs. Had the PAP adopted the attitude of the RWS management as encapsulated in the remarks above, that would likely have been very costly. It is still early days to make any judgement on how the party has transformed itself since the elections but the signs are there that change is being rolled out at every level of the Government.

Surely, RWS could learn a thing or two from the elections!

Politics and society

I would like to share a few lines from a book i'm currently reading:

As long as things work smoothly the majority of people give them little heed, but, if an additional tax be levied, they are immediately interested in politics.' (taken from 'Practical Politics or The Liberalism of To-Day' by Alfred F. Robbins)

I felt this is relevant for all democracies, young and old alike, and closer to home, it strikes a chord when one looks at the recent elections in Singapore where a record 93% of over 2 million voters turned out to cast their vote on 7 May (Source: Asiaone). There is a mood of political fervour in Singapore today, witnessed not only in coffeeshop small talk, but also on the Internet through the participation of netizens eager to express their views on political developments at home. I think this is indeed an extremely positive development for our country and society and it is heartening also to see youth increasingly talking and showing interest in such issues where they had previously been apathetic.

Nonetheless, it would be a great pity should we slip back into a zone of comfort and indifference and only awake until something serious enough happens before we debate and discuss the future of our country and the issues that affect us. Indeed, the government has and is making a valiant attempt to introspect its approach to engaging with citizens and the policies that affect the livelihood of many Singaporeans. But surely this will not succeed if the citizens themselves are passive and let the politicians run the show only to complain at the next election if the GST goes up or housing prices sky-rocket. Every citizen, regardless of race, language, or religion, has a duty to contribute to the country. Only if we have a two-way engagement between government and society can we then hope for a more meaningful and sustainable partnership and one that gives a sense of ownership to every citizen.

Aftermath of GE 2011

'Take for example, all the criticisms that have been made about us and our system that it stifles the opposition, that the GRCs perpetuate the ruling party. Well, it has been proven wrong, because the system works.' - Prof S. Jayakumar, 9 May