[Update 5 Jan 2012: See our latest post Pay Cut for Prime Minister and Ministers, But Note the Make-Up Pay.]
PM Lee has just appointed a committee chaired by Gerard Ee to review ministerial salaries.
As pointed out in today’s Straits Times (printed edition), the government “does not disclose how much each minister is paid”, but the most current figures released by PSD are for the year 2009, which Salary.sg also covered in a previous article:
- President $3.14m
- Prime Minister $3.04m
- Ministerial Grade MR4 $1.57m – senior Perm Secs also get this amount.
- Entry Superscale Grade SR9 $353,000
- Allowance for Members of Parliament $190,000. Note that almost all MPs hold full-time jobs and some are also directors of companies.
When interviewed, the chair of the Ministerial Salaries Review committee, Gerard Ee, said (emphasis mine):
“Whatever we work out, the final answer must include a substantial discount on comparable salaries in the private sector…” (ST, May 22, 2011)
I have 2 questions: How much is “substantial”? Why compare with only “private sector” and not other comparable countries?
No one mentions benchmarking against other similar countries. Is there a reason?
Highest Paid Civil Servants in the World
Senior Permanent Secretaries in Singapore are given a 7-figure annual pay, probably including the one who is trained in French cuisine. 🙂
In UK, the highest paid civil servant is the head of the Office of Fair Trading. He gets a meagre 280k pounds, which is less than S$600k. If you google for “highest paid civil servants in the world”, you will read about complaints from unhappy people in Canada, Ireland and South Africa when their best remunerated civil servants are paid just a fraction of ours.
The fact is that our best paid civil servants are getting multiple times the amount their foreign counterparts are getting.
I would like to see Singapore’s senior civil servants getting roughly the same remuneration as their counterparts in other countries, not multiple times more. I would also like to see them being held accountable for their work and perhaps be subject to early retirements if they are not up to par.
Highest Paid Political Leaders in the World
To the embarrassment of many Singaporeans, we also have the highest paid political leaders in the world.
According to MSN Money, PM Lee is the world’s highest paid politician, earning “by a staggering margin” more than 5 times what the runner-up Donald Tsang (Hong Kong) takes home.
With PM Lee’s salary alone, we can pay the combined salaries of 8 of the world’s highest paid politicians, including Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy.
With PM Lee’s salary alone, we can also fund all the 10 highest-paid government jobs in the US, including the jobs of Hillary Clinton, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke and again Barack Obama.
Similar to what I said for civil servants, I would also like to see our political leaders be remunerated by roughly the same amount as their foreign counterparts, not multiple times more.
By how much should Singapore’s ministerial salaries be cut?
70 Comments
I think the difference in that politicians and civil servants in other countries have other benefits apart from their salaries- housing, medical, travel, etc.
In singapore, the govt has moved to something called a “clean wage system” where all benefits are monetised so that there are no hidden perks and costs to the system. Hence, to compare salary would not be appropriate cos it’s apple to oranges.
This will be a very tricky exercise actually, because they need to find the “sweet spot” that is politically acceptable, i.e. ministerial salaries must be low enough that it is no longer a political issue, but yet not so low that it prevents them from getting talent into the party. And it is complicated because most of their talent comes from the admin service (in all of Cabinet, only Ng Eng Hen and Shanmugam are truly from private sector with no experience in public service as an AO).
Now, we can agree that the absolute level of the salaries will need to come down significantly for it to make a difference politically, no matter what method is used for calculating salaries. My personal sense is that a majority of Singaporeans would be ok with an entry level Minister’s salary in the high 6 figure range, i.e. so you can no longer complain about million dollar ministers.
Now the most critical and interesting question is, what do you do with the civil servants in the admin service? Do you:
1) keep their salaries where they are (given that they are, after all, policy professionals rather than politicians)? then how will you get admin officers to join the PAP in the future if they have to take a pay CUT to become ministers, where they will be the target of public hatred, have to do grassroots work on nights and weekends and possibly lose their jobs every 5 years.
2) cut their salaries to reflect the hierarchy of ministers over permanent secretary (PS) and other AOs etc. if that happens and the typical PS can only look forward to making say $800k at the top of their careers while their peers in finance, law and medicine can make 4-5x as much, the admin service will experience an exodus of talent. not from the senior level folk (after all, making a transition to the private sector when you’re in your 40s or 50s is tough!), but anyone worth their salt in their 20s or 30s will be searching for the exits. the admin service (and civil service more broadly) is a first career, one that you enter out of university, and structured such that you’re expected to stay 20-30 years till you make PS. not like politics, where it is a second career that you enter later in life when you may already have made a very comfortable sum of money from a lucrative private sector career. the choices available to the best and the brightest young singaporeans (e.g. the ones who go to the harvards and stanfords of the world) are almost endless. who is to say that becoming a top surgeon for example is any less meaningful than becoming a PS, and if their expected lifetime earnings as a top surgeon are significantly higher, that may very well tip their choice in favor of an alternative to the admin service.
the final irony is that unlike other top-paying fields, the admin service can only recruit singaporeans and can’t hold down salaries by bringing in foreign talent.
a suggestion to the editor:
I wrote the comment above about admin service salaries in relation to the ministerial salaries. I would be really interested in seeing a poll on whether people think that admin service salaries should be cut as well, or only *political* office holder salaries should be cut. My intuition is that it is the former, but it would be interesting to see the data.
“$800k at the top of their careers while their peers in finance, law and medicine can make 4-5x as much”
The last I checked, there were only about 3600 people in Singapore making 7 figures a year.
800k is already a very good income by any measure. If they want to make millions WORKING for someone, they should not be in public service. If they want to be rich, they should take risks and become entrepreneurs. Either way, luck and timing are always necessary, on top of being talented. Do all doctors and lawyers make millions?
I agree with you that this salary review exercise is going to be hard. They got into this mess. They gotta get out of it.
“politicians and civil servants in other countries have other benefits”
You mean Singapore is so unique that there are absolutely no other benefits outside of salaries? Why do I see books from ex-ministers?
And do you mean that all other countries have other ways of paying 7 figures to their political office holders? If so, let’s raise our ministerial salaries further!
You are talking about people who are the best of their cohort, so it’s not unreasonable that they EXPECT to be at the top of their professions. Whether they make it is another question, but their career choices will be based on what they expect to accomplish, rather than the average outcome. And even in the admin service, the average outcome is not making it to PS, so I’m comparing optimistic outcome in public sector vs private sector. If we compare average outcome, the difference is even worse for the admin service because out is up or out. If you don’t make it to the next level, you are exited from the service.
already singapore has seen ministers whose abilities do not commensurate with the importance of their portfolio & the qulaity of their work. the government has admitted as much that the system is errorous. what makes u think the same is not happening in the admin service ?
The base pay should be cut to near their counterparts’ amount, while in increment should be pegged to other factors. I can’t decide the factor to be median income or raise of lowest wage though…
Till now, the committee has not even considered looking at how political apointees are remunerated in other first world countries. Kept talking about private sector.
Absolutely disappointing!
let’s assume that your contention is true, that the admin service is not good enough. how does it then follow that the answer is to lower salaries? would it not make sense to instead consider changing the selection/promotion criteria? how would lowering salaries help you attract better quality admin officers?
public service should not pay private wages.
if its private sector remuneration packages, peg public service roles n responsibilities to private sector KPIs.
in private practice, if you fail to achieve or meet expectations u get the box to pack up or u get zero bonuses. and certainly no cushy guaranteed pension schemes.
we dun mind paying cabinet n civil service top $$, but please be accountable n transparent.
we dun mind paying more for our rank n file in the civil service not just the top selected few.
the reality is that political, judicial and civil service salaries in most other countries were decided a long time ago when they were reasonably competitive to the private sector. but the public sector did not keep pace with increases in the private sector over the last 30-40 years and with every year it becomes politically more impossible to close the gap. hence many politicians have already built (or inherited) wealth before entering politics.
consider the story of j michael luttig, a former top US judge (he was on the equivalent to high court in Singapore), he was also on the short list to be nominated for the supreme court a number of times. however in 2006, he quit his position as a high court judge to become a corporate lawyer for boeing, because he was worried about making enough money to pay for his 2 young children’s university education.
is that the sort of system that we want in singapore? where only people who are already wealthy can afford to go into public service? where good public servants are forced to make the choice between their children’s futures and their country? is that the way we can make sure that singapore gets the best possible leaders into public service?
you raise a good point and i agree that the admin service needs more accountability and people who do not perform should be exited or face more significant drops in compensation than under the current system.
but there is also another thing to consider, which is the lack of alternatives. what do i mean? for example, if i’m an investment banker with goldman sachs and i have a bad year (all my deals fall apart), maybe i get 0 bonus or get fired. but there are other alternatives in the form of goldman’s competitors that i can join and that are likely to want to hire me. maybe i have to take a step down and go to a “lesser” firm like HSBC or DBS, but i am good but just had a unlucky year, i have a good chance at being able to land on my feet.
now instead, say i am the PS of MEWR. there’s a big storm that no one predicted beforehand, causing floods in orchard road. ok, accountability right, so i am fired. now, what are my alternatives? i am a singapore citizen, which other government can i join? the answer is that i have absolutely zero direct alternatives.
so i think that it isn’t unreasonable for public servants to be compensated for entering an “industry” where there is no competition and only one employer (the government).
are singapore’s current & past leadership regimes under the top dollars for top posts working correctly ? This is why the system is being reviewed by the govt itself !!
maybe they are not paid enough.
LKY said “for people like me in government, to deal with the money which we have accumulated by the sweat of our brow over the last 40 years, you have to pay the market rate or the man will up stakes and join Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs and you would have an incompetent man and you would have lost money by the billions.”
He also told the Straits Times that it is “absurd” for Singaporeans to quarrel about ministerial pay and warned that Singapore would suffer if the government could not pay competitive salaries.
“Your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries,” he said.
—
So I say, let’s not quarrel over such small dollars in relation to the huge GDP the country is making. We should increase their pay more. How about $1 billion each?
Otherwise, my wife and my daughters may become maids in other countries. I’m scared.
you can become maids to the FTs in Singapore, no need to bring passports la !
so are you a maid already?
pls look for the singapore maid at http://www.singaporemaid.com.
check out Denise Phua’s speech in 2007:
http://goo.gl/wvE4H
quite rare for a PAP MP to say what she said.
“There was something missing. There was no reference to political salaries in other countries. Yet, this was exactly the comparison that Singaporeans have been applying for years, with increasing rancour.”
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/into-the-minefield-of-ministerial-salaries/
we always compare ourselves with the world – airport, ship ports, trade, cleanliness, crime rate, academic excellence – EXCEPT MINISTERIAL SALARIES!
i think they are not sincere in this pay review exercise. another wayang. 2016.
to other alternatives,
i seriously hope you are not a civil servant.
in private sector, it is commonly mistaken that you are given a 2nd chance. the harsh reality is the 2nd chance comes in the form of a long wait for the next job or a lower package or on terms less favourable than before. it is highly uncommon for one to get terms that are much better after being “fired” for underperformance. employers do their due dilligience well, especially for high flyers hires.
next, your arguement that the Government is the only employer hence the salary should comfortably provide them for early retirement and other mishaps. seriously, i hope you can tell me which employer in the private sector will include that sort of considerations to their employees’ remuneration packages? im not too sure if u had heard of moral hazard? by providing such strong safety nets, you tend to encourage hazardous and reckless behaviour. its the same arguement our Government gives when they deny and refute the logic of safety net for the underpriviledged and low income groups.
im not advocating a huge pay cut to the cabinet n top brass, as such a drastic move will no doubt affect morale n motivation. we all accept that we are all mere mortals who need bread n butter to survive. and a low package do enhance the temptations of corruption and greed.
however, i am advocating a fairer and open approach. do not shroud the remuneration packages and benefits with secrecy and smoke. publish them with the annual statistics and reports. let those who are concerned have means to find them.
second, not only the cabinet and top brass deserve the high packages and benefits. the rank n file do deserve a better life. what is the use of a capable general and lieutanants, when the foot soldiers and sergeants are highly disgruntled?
is there only 1 employer for sg pap has beens ?
to name a few, there are david lim, chee onn, danabhalan, yeo ning hong, ong ye kung, the saf many generals. Are they so worthless ? Let’s see where the aljunied ex-pap team are going. The government always advocate singaporeans to go for training & re-training to take up what ever jobs there are in the market.
@worthless – there are more than one. GIC, Temasek and linked companies, all the GLCs like KepCorp SembCorp and SPH, and of course NTUC and MediaCorp.
PM – 1 million
Full Minister – 300k
Acting Minister – 150k
MM/SM/ESM – 50k since they only give advice
Prez – 200k coz he only attend dinners and take photos.
Minister of Parliament – 3k per month since they are part time only.
All superscale and below take dressing from 300k.
Junior Teacher / Policeman/ etc etc – increase to 5k per month (now got more money to share)
I agree with The Boss. But I propose MPs be paid by the hour to encourage them to put in the hours. $100/hr will be more than decent.
Of course, they will need to clock in and clock out. Town council guards will be there to check for abuse.
🙂
>No one mentions benchmarking against other similar countries. Is there a reason?
The reason is: No matter how they cut, they will STILL be the HIGHEST PAID in the FREAKING WORLD WIDE WORLD.
Maybe cut from 5x of Donald Tsang’s salary to 3x.
Still obscene. I’m ashamed.
adiemuso:
i’m not saying that the government should provide salaries that compensate for the fact that there’s only one employer in the market.
what i’m saying is that if the government doesn’t offer attractive salaries for the admin service, many of the best and brightest will no longer choose it as a career. this is not to say that they may not contribute. but if i’m a talented young singaporean, with the choice of taking up a government scholarship leading to a career as an admin officer, where even if i become a permanent secretary i will make “only” $800k a year (and this is being generous, if you poll many singaporeans, they would say that Ministers and permanent secretaries should make even less than $500k a year for example). or alternatively, i can choose to become a top corporate lawyer like chen show mao making $5-10million a year. make my bundle, and then stand for office. surely i can perform public service that way too? let me ask you: faced with a choice like that, how do you think such a talented young singaporean would decide? would you consider the person who pursued the chen show mao path to be selfish or greedy or any of the other adjectives our ministers and admin officers have been described as? (and i’m not saying that this will 100% happen along either path, but these are POTENTIAL outcomes which will factor into how the choice is made by the individual).
i’m not saying that this results in any worse quality of government. obviously there are different schools of thought. my belief is that a professional civil service where the key leadership positions are filled with people who were from the top 0.5% of their cohort is more likely to result in more effective government for singapore. it is certainly valid for you to disagree and say that you would rather have a civil service led by people drawn from the top say 20% of their cohort, but more self-sacrificing and willing to work for far less than the market value of their talent. let me just ask you this: if you went for open heart surgery, would you rather be operated on by the surgeon who graduated #1 in his class and was a president’s scholar or the surgeon who graduated in the middle of his class but has a good bedside manner and does pro bono operations at charity hospitals 2 days a week? the latter may be a far better human being, but for me (and my family), i will choose the former any day.
whatever happens to the current elite Admin Service in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Transport, National Defence, Environment, etc, etc , when things go wrong in singapore ? You are really one of those who have been brainwashed, huh ?
I’m not brainwashed, just trying to think this through in a logical way.
If your major issue with high salaries is that there isn’t enough accountability when things go wrong (which I agree with), then wouldn’t the solution to that be to make it easier to fire them? Or to make a greater proportion of their compensation performance linked? Rather than cut overall compensation altogether?
It’s like if you were running a company and one division had a terrible year, would you fire the head of the division? Or cut the salaries of all division heads, even those who had done well?
to adiemuso,
thats the basis of my point.
public service is not private enterprise.
your arguement is not flawed. your logic is sound.
but, remember that life is not all about dollars and cents.
especially so for public service. it is not a place for one to expect riches in the form of dollars n cents. it is more about serving the people well while u have a very decent lifestyle.
if you confuse civil service with investment banking, top lawyers, managing partners, surgeons and so on, then i think you are grossly mistaken. many top guys think beyond dollars n cents as their motivational n actualisation benchmarks. simply put…”its more than im good, so i must draw XXX mio.”
High ministerial salaries do not help in this context. Because of them, many Singaporeans set an impossible benchmark for what they consider good governance: perfection. Any mistake by government – real or perceived – is held up against ministerial salaries and used as evidence that government is incompetent relative to how well it is paid.
http://www.transitioning.org/2011/05/21/post-ge-what-went-wrong/
re: your point about drawing top talent.
again, i have mentioned. paying top dollar does have its merits in attracting talents. however, if the top dollar is grossy misaligned with the general public sentiments and actual facts on the ground, it might attract the wrong type of people. highly qualified people who have more interest in enriching him or her bank accounts.
this issue has been discussed many times, not only in political arena but also the banking n financial world. financial crisis poured all out for everyone to see. the arguements are all out there, digital or print. but the concensus is, many top bankers are grossly overpaid. and hence many became too shortterm, myopic and greedy.
that is the danger of overpaying. “how much is too much? how much is enough?”
if you run a private enterprise, say a bank. u make 1bio a year and u are contractually entitled to 10%, then its fine.
but if you are a public servant, even if u make 1 bio, but your people are mainly surviving on less than 120k p.a, does it justify your contractually due high rewards based on your stellar performance?
>surviving on less than 120k p.a
120k pa! do you eat at hawker centre, food court or restaurant?
many people here survive on 50k pa!
hope folks here don’t get overboard and be less hypocritical. because i see everyone is basically justifying his/her pay, and justifying that everyone above him is not deserving his/her pay.
If you’re a teacher, then you think principal is too highly paid, but remember the trainee thinks you’re too highly paid too.
if you are in position of power, whether PM, head in private sector, CEO, nothing is too high, not 3m, not 10m or 100m. if you are a toilet cleaner, nothing is too low, some people will even say $1/hr is too much to splash water around.
Adiemuso:
I agree with you that at some point, increasing compensation doesn’t lead to the right type of incentives. I think you would also agree with me that decreasing compensation too much would also lead to an inability to attract talented people. The difference between us is what those amounts should be.
I’m also concerned with how civil servants and politicians are being characterized as greedy for wanting attractive compensation in public service. It makes a path like chen show mao’s career more attractive. Make $5-10 million a year as a top corporate lawyer, then I still get to come back and engage in public service. And no one will call me greedy.
making multiple times more than the runner-up is EXTREMELY EXCESSIVE lah.
do you see usain bolt running 5x faster than the runner-up? or michael jordan shooting 5x more?
they are out of touch and their salaries are out of this world.
how come after all these years, no other country has increased their political salaries after “secretly admiring” singapore’s “highly regarded” system of remuneration?
to adiemuso,
agree.
i think the package should be
a comfy 13mth basic p.a. maybe 500k? im sure those smart guys at singstats n mof has the best info.
a variable component that pays out XX% of yearly basic based on a multiple of median or average IRAS income level.
a variable component that pays out performance bonuses based on KPIs and other benchmarks. and this is paid out over a period of 5 yrs, subjected to clawbacks n watermarks.
a list of benefits and entitlements for office holders.
another nonsense argument from a PAP MP:
他认为，将部长的薪金调整得过低是个不合理的要求。例如，新闻、通讯及艺术部的部长一年的薪金只有50万的话，当他与身价数百万的电信公司总裁开会商讨政策的问题时，可能面对一些困难。因为总裁们可能认为没有必要听取部长的意见与建议，因此合理的薪酬将有助于维持“一点尊严”
http://zaobao.com.sg/sp/sp110523_008.shtml
directly translated using Google Tranlate:
In his view, the Minister of too low a salary adjustment of unreasonable demands. For example, the Information, Communications and the Arts Minister year, only 50 million salary, so that when he and worth millions of Telecom’s president met to discuss policy issues, you may face some difficulties. Because the executives may think that there is no need to listen to the views of ministers and suggestions, so a reasonable remuneration will help to maintain “some dignity”
==
then i think the MICA minister should talk more to Steve Jobs, who makes only $1 a year. we can reward the minister with Apple shares, but he can’t sell until Steve Jobs sells.
adiemuso,
>a variable component that pays out XX% of yearly basic based on a multiple of median or average IRAS income level.
what would you say an appropriate min/max range for this XX% should be? say it tracked either growth in median/average income as you suggest or some other metric that reflects the average singaporean benefiting from growth.
> a variable component that pays out performance bonuses based on KPIs and other benchmarks. and this is paid out over a period of 5 yrs, subjected to clawbacks n watermarks.
how large should this deferred component be (again min/max range) in terms of a % of base salary?
> a list of benefits and entitlements for office holders.
i agree with you that this should be accounted for and i believe it is because office holders are on an entirely cash wage these days. for example, they don’t get an official car and driver provided free, it is included in their total compensation package (along with pension, health benefits etc etc). so the headline figure that you see is pretty accurate.
to adiemuso,
you seriously sound like a civil servant.
pm me if u wish.
im no scholar nor HR expert. would not dare to suggest details on a public domain lest im miscontrued to be sprouting too much nonsense.
but u are gettin my drift.
junior ministers are currently on 1mio++ and onwards. if 50% are fixed. the other balance should be made variable with the key indicators as KPI. increment can be linear or otherwise. singstats n MOF have tons of scholars that can help u with the details.
and a significant portion (more than 50%) of bonuses should be on deferred scheme with clawbacks and high watermarks clauses. there are many examples around in the private world that will shed more light.
if, the parties are willing, they should contribute a portion of their salaries to a welfare fund. designed especially to help the lower income n less priviledged Singaporean students.
adiemuso,
haha, no need to be so paranoid, i’m not a civil servant. but i do see my friends from school days in the admin service currently really worried about the backlash over ministerial salaries and wondering how much it will affect them, especially since some of them have just bought homes and have large mortgages to service for the next 20-30 years. to be sure, the man in the street should hardly feel sorry for them as they will be fine in the end. but from their perspective, it is unfortunate that they have already undertaken some financial obligations and are now left uncertain as to whether they will be able to meet them.
which is why i’m quite curious as to what overall size of total compensation do you (and others) think is reasonable (hence my questions about how much bonus on top of the $500k base you proposed is reasonable). i’ve been asking random people such as taxi drivers, hawkers, white collar professionals etc and i’m often hearing numbers like $20-30k a month (with 1-3 months bonus) total compensation for a minister! of course this is a large amount of money relative to the average/median income, but that still implies a *massive* pay cut.
Heard over radio that minister pay used to be monthly 48.5k before 1994 when it’s pegged to top earners. 48.5k is already close to 600k per year – that’s already more than a current USA president pay!
How much do they want?!
to adiemuso,
its better to err on the safer side. u never know what will come back to haunt you.
just a thought, perhaps its not that the ministerial packages are high, its just that our common salaries are too low!
whose fault is that the common pple salaries are too low & costs of living are too high ?
i say no bonuses for cost centers.
It is none of our problem to ensure there is no too big a pay cut for ministers or civil servants. They should go figure out how to balance their finances if they have been thinking that the party would go on forever and therefore overspending on taxpayers monies. The PAP government started on the wrong footing by paying themselves ridiculous, out of the world salaries so they should bite the bullet now and clean up the mess they have created in the first place. If they are going to wait for us to clean up the mess for them in GE 2016, then I think they are going to be very rude shock
it was $48,900 before 1994, already astronomical by any standard – this amount is already more than what US President is NOW getting, even before factoring inflation (i.e. money was “bigger” in 1994).
Source of the $48,900 figure:
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/ministerial-salaries-social-compact-commercial-contract-132939894.html
come on, looking at the track records so far, seriously how many of these ministerial and admin “talents” can achieve the same in other positions ? Time for some realism and self-awareness to step in.
The justification that our government needs to fork out massive payouts to retain top talent for our Minister posts is a fallacy.These people, we are told, possess such rare managerial talent that they can rightfully lay claim to fabulous wealth. This view persists despite the absence of accountability, transparency and any reasonable method of measuring individual performance, let alone attributing a country’s success to it.
Those who promote the “talent” argument repeatedly evoke an erroneous comparison with sports stars. Many people may object to the high earnings of the latter on moral grounds, but it is certainly rational to pay for sporting prowess that is highly transparent, and close to irreplaceable. Only a handful among the billions on the planet could emulate the skills and impact of Christiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi.
The truth is that the “talent” referred to in the civil service does not generally describe a rare ability, as it does in sport. Rather, it is deployed to defend the positions and wealth of high-fliers in a knowledge-based government, where the value of individual contribution is so subjective. In doing so, it serves to sanction the unwarranted plunder of government funds. In Singapore, those government funds mostly belong to the population at large, through their CPF and tax contributions.
Singaporeans have no problem with entrepreneurs becoming extremely wealthy, but they smell a giant rat in the form of high salaries for our Ministers. The growing realisation that a small club of insiders has stolen the system from them has created a widespread popular resentment. The brazen appropriation of wealth also discredits the entire system of free enterprise.
Excessive pay at the top of our government distorts the incentives for smart, hardworking young people away from entrepreneurship, with all the creative energy and innovation it unleashes, and towards a life as a pay-grade climbing & bonus-striving civil servant, bound by scholarships and working in government jobs that many others could also do.
The myth of Minister’s omnipotence and its twin misconception, the myth of rare government talent, cost us dear and must be challenged vigorously and urgently. It is, after all, the population at large which owns government funds, and therefore has to pay for the exorbitant salaries that are a direct consequence of these myths.
It’s not just the money that is being unjustly taken from the population as a result of the myths surrounding Ministers. What signal does it send to society when government leaders become hugely wealthy without themselves taking on any personal risk or creating anything new? What damage does that message do to innovation and entrepreneurship? Why not forget about setting up that business, and just try to become another Minister or top civil servant and becoming rich, no matter what problems and hardships common Singaporeans have?
With reference to:
————————————————
anon Says:
May 22nd, 2011 at 10:14 pm
I think the difference in that politicians and civil servants in other countries have other benefits apart from their salaries- housing, medical, travel, etc.
In singapore, the govt has moved to something called a “clean wage system” where all benefits are monetised so that there are no hidden perks and costs to the system. Hence, to compare salary would not be appropriate cos it’s apple to oranges.
————————————————
Is there transparency or proof that our ministers have no benefits for housing, medical or travel & etc? How would you define ‘Clean wage system’ in your context?
With a closed book you refer to, there is no information. Just your view.
The comparison is apple to apple – what kind of apple to what other kind of apple.
That MP Lim Wee Kiak has apologized and retracted his quote.
Suddenly we hear a lot of apologies.