Speech by Ms Irene Ng, MP (Tampines GRC), Debate on civil salary revisions

Apr 11, 2007
AsiaOne

Sir, we have been talking in terms of digits and formulas in this debate on salaries.

People read the headlines screaming that ministers’ salaries will go up 33 per cent, and they go “wah”!! They read about the Prime Minister's pay being increased to $3.1 million and they go “wahhh!!”. They find it very hard to relate to these mind-boggling figures.

But there is a human dimension involved in this debate and we must not lose sight of that.

Behind these figures are human beings with not only exceptional abilities but with exceptional life stories which speak much of their character and the sacrifices they make to serve our people.

Indeed, there are sacrifices made to join politics, even after the proposed adjustment to salaries. People may forget, but Cabinet Ministers take personal risks as well as pay a price as they toil to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

TALE OF TWO LIMS

To illustrate this, I would first like to tell a tale of two Lims.

These two Lims, who were trained to be naval architects, had promising careers before being called upon to join politics in their prime. They later became Cabinet Ministers. Both served in the labour movement as its Secretary-General.

I would say that this is one of the most demanding jobs around, one of the most unglamorous but one of the most important. Ultimately, it is about jobs and securing a better life for our workers.

The first man is Lim Chee Onn. He left the Civil Service in 1977 to join politics, and was assessed highly by the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew for his calibre.

Two years later, he became Secretary-General of the NTUC. In 1980, he was appointed Minister without Portfolio when he was just 36.

In his years in NTUC, he helped to modernise the trade union movement, emphasising the need for workers to upgrade skills and increase productivity.

Among other initiatives, he also inducted scholars and professionals into NTUC to provide planning and research back-up.

But his style led to problems with old guard unionists. It was not an easy time for Mr Lim. He resigned from NTUC and the Cabinet in 1983, and joined the backbench.

In 1992, suffering from high blood pressure, Mr Lim left politics altogether to focus on his corporate work.

Since then, he has been making news in the corporate sector especially in his position as the CEO of Keppel Corp.

Among the latest is the news that Keppel Corp paid him between $5.5 million and $5.75 million in 2005. This is an amount that not even the Prime Minister will earn.

The other Lim is Lim Boon Heng.

He left a high-flying career in Neptune Orient Lines to join politics in 1980.

A year later in 1981, he joined NTUC, and rose to become its secretary-general in 1993.

Mr Lim occupied the hottest seat in town during the recessions in 1998 and 2001 when he persuaded workers to take a CPF cut to turn the country around. It carried not inconsiderable political risk. It was a very unpopular move, and he had to face anger from unionists and abuse from workers.

But the bitter medicine worked and the economy recovered quickly. The unemployment rate fell rapidly. In good times, he pushed the tripartite partners for the CPF cut to be restored and for wage increases.

His mantra is that “the best welfare for a worker is a job”.

He worked tirelessly to create a flexible wage system so that as many jobs as possible could be preserved during difficult economic times.

Mr Lim also mooted the idea of re-designing jobs, to raise productivity and help workers increase their wages.

Those who have worked with Mr Lim know he leads by example and through moral suasion. He spent much of his time worrying about the lower-wage workers and their welfare. I have seen him choking back tears when grappling with difficult issues which touch his heart.

Today, he is still in Cabinet, worrying about another difficult issue: our ageing population. If he succeeds in this taskdoes this job right, we can all grow old a little more peacefully.

His pay today? A small fraction of Lim Chee Onn’s.

I tell this tale of the two Lims to highlight the rigorous demands of political office, especially as a leader in the labour movement, the risks involved, and the stark contrast between the reward systems for high-calibre people who remain in politics and for those who leave it.

I don’t believe Mr Lim Boon Heng or any of our Ministers would work less hard or be less committed if their salaries remain as they are. But if we apply the principle that we in the labour market have been fighting for on behalf of our workers – pay our workers according to their abilities and performance - why should we adopt an opposing standard when it comes to those who make it possible for us to enjoy a better standard of living year by year.

If we have a rigorous selection process to put the right high-calibre people in place, they will not be there for the money. They will be there for the right reasons. The opportunists and the greedy have no place in this Government. We have that selection system right now under the PAP.

Among democracies, we are unique in that we don’t see politicians jostling for positions or fighting for the spoils of office. We don’t see Ministers undermining each other or giving any leaks to the media about political rifts in the ranks, which is the normal state of affairs in countries such as UK and US and also in this region. There are no political conspiracies in our corridors of power.

We don’t see a long queue of people banging on the door to become Ministers or manouvering their way in. We don’t see any Minister hankering to be the Prime Minister.

That is a clear sign as any that our Ministers are not there for the positions per se or the monetary rewards that may come with it. They are there out of a sense of duty and mission.

But that is no reason for us to begrudge the office-holders their due reward, as a matter of principle.

Far from it. Rather than quibble emotionally over their salaries and haggle as if we are at a pasar malam, we should rationally reward the Ministers appropriately, knowing that their job is very complex, demanding and often thankless.

We should do so with peace of mind, knowing that if Singapore suffers from any crisis or calamity, when other countries are sinking in their problems and their people are suffering, we are in good hands because we’ve got the best to steer the ship to a safe harbour.

Detractors such as the opposition tend to argue as if they are standing on high moral ground. But a closer examination would reveal that in fact, they are on a very slippery slope that would propel us all back into the Third World swamp that we were just a generation ago.

Then yes, the widening income will not be a lesser problem because many of us will be wallowing in unemployment and many of our top people would have left the country to better shores.

We have an exceptional leadership which led Singapore into the rarefied league of the richest countries, with the fifth highest per capita income in the world. It is Asia's second-richest country after Japan.

It is easy to forget that Singapore is an exceptional state, but it is.

In his book “Singapore’s Foreign Policy”, the late Michael Leifer from the London School of Economics, noted how exceptional Singapore was in its achievements. As he sought to pigeonhole the small country in a category of states, he concluded that Singapore is best represented as sui generis -- one of its kind, irrespective of its size.

It does not fit the broad categories of small states and micro-states, or of "weak states", which has come to be the common label for small, vulnerable states.

He noted that Singapore's exceptional standing and influence come mainly from its economic achievements, with its reputation for excellence.

This reputation for exellence was set by its leaders.

Some have argued that, yes, the leaders played an important role in building up Singapore to what it is today, but so did the workers. Of course, the role of workers are also pivotal. They united behind the Government and we overcame challenges together.

But let us look at it another way. If the workforce does not have leaders who put in place skills training programmes and provide high quality education and the productivity campaigns, will it transform to become the most productive in the world? If the workforce does not have leaders who go all out to woo foreign investors and give them the confidence to pour billions into Singapore, would our workers have the jobs and high quality of life they have today?

Let us take any country in this neighbourhood, say Vietnam. Its workers are very hard-working, very hungry. I have visited the Vietnam-Singapore industrial park some years back. Some foreign investors tell me that the Vietnamese are hungrier and more hard-working than Singaporean workers. They learn very quickly. I don’t think, man to man, the Vietnamese worker is inferior to the Singapore worker. Yet as a whole, they are not enjoying anywhere near the standard of living of Singaporean workers in Singapore.

We need to ask ourselves, why is that so?

Some detractors couch this debate in terms of moral leadership. But what is immoral about paying people what they are worth?

We are not talking about rewarding layabouts who have shown little passion for Singapore or produced lacklustre results. On the contrary, we have enjoyed the fruits of their labour, and yes, also of their personal sacrifice.

If I may tell another story. It is about the PM and I hope he will not mind this.

In my previous life as a senior political correspondent, I had interviewed him when he was diagnosed with cancer. This was in 1992, when he was Deputy Prime Minister. Then, he was undergoing his 18-week course of chemotherapy.

Before he started his treatment, he had led an investment promotion mission to Japan after the doctors had finished with their tests. He was also Trade and Industry Minister, and wanted to meet leading Japanese businessmen to persuade them to invest here. He was also taking along with him Singapore businessmen to help open doors for them to do business with the Japanese

I think if you ask anyone suffering from cancer, you would know that this is not regular work behaviour. This is extraordinary commitment.

The stock market was jittery at the news of his cancer. To give people confidence and to protect Singapore’s interests, Mr Lee spoke to the media about his illness and how he was coping. He consented to be photographed. I remember this vividly. He was bald. Tubes stuck out from a dressing over his chest, the entry point for the drugs being pumped into his veins.

I don’t think he put himself in the public spotlight for himself, but to assure the public and investors that life and business in Singapore was going on as usual.

When the cancer went into remission five years later, he did not take time off to smell the roses. Instead, he took on the extra roles of finance minister and central bank chairman.

And then, later, he took on what must be the most demanding and life-consuming job in Singapore, that of Prime Minister!

I have friends who are cancer survivors. Many said that surviving cancer forced them to rethink their worldview and their priorities in life.

Typical responses of cancer survivors are that they would want to go on adventures, explore the world or live a more “balanced” life with less stress, spend more time with the family.

But here we have a man in the front row who, after surviving cancer, decided to continue to put first the priorities of Singapore and Singaporeans by taking on the most stressful job in Singapore, being its Prime Minister.

I think few would disagree that that the PM’s job is extremely important to the country, if not the most important. His decisions affect our lives. He is the country’s no 1 CEO, the chief strategist, the chief visionary, the chief spokesman for the country.

But in the real world, he is ranked presently 164 among income earners. After the revision, he will rank 102nd.

I have no doubt that the PM is not asking for a salary increase for himself. He lives a simple lifestyle. It is to lay the right foundation for Singapore’s future. To survive and prosper, we need extraordinary leaders.

I am sure that a question that must be keeping him awake at nights is: Will he be able to field a top-quality Cabinet for the next generation or two, and can he find one able and willing to be groomed to succeed him as PM?

Events in the region have shown how political succession gone awry can wreak havoc and instability. Political feuding and infighting can become the order of the day.

The Singapore leadership, on the other hand, from the Old Guard days, has distinguished itself in the region by its determined and meticulous approach to the problem of political succession.

The smooth passing of the torch from the Old Guard to the second-generation team and then the third, was the result of decades of careful planning and hard work.

Our problem, if we can call it that, is that we have a pragmatic and unsentimental approach to politics.

This can be a strength but also a weakness. A strength because it keeps the people focused on national issues and challenges, which are perennial, and not on political personalities which come and go. This ensures a continuity and a resilience that go beyond personalities in govt. but it can also be a weakness because it breeds in people a detachment from the political leaders and politics in general. They get only heated up if it affects their pocket in any way. They also tend to take for granted the work of the political leaders and dismiss their sacrifices.

Sir, it seems to me that this debate is not only a test of the quality and worth of the political leaders but also the quality of our electorate. Without a sound and wise electorate able to see the big picture and discern the true national interest at stake, there will be a steady erosion of people willing to take on the rigours of public office.

Some people make out the debate to be between realism and idealism, as if to pay our Ministers fairly is to give up the ideals of sacrifice and duty. In a related vein, some believe that the salary revisions will cause people to be cynical about politics.

Does it follow then that, in countries where they pay their leaders low, and we have many in our neighbourhood, their leaders have high ideals and that their voters hold them in high regard, are idealistic and fan high hopes about their political system?

Even in First World countries, many analysts and journalists observe how voters have become increasingly cynical, to the extent that many are not turning up to vote, despite having many political parties to vote for. A reason for the voter cynicism is that they believe that their political leaders are not delivering and that things will not change.

The opposition argues that we should benchmark the pay of our top leaders against that of other countries.

But the jobs are not inter-changeable.

For the sake of argument, let’s say they are, and we hire George Bush and pay him what he is paid in the US to run this country. I don’t think it is unreasonable if he asked for the perks to be matched as well. I hope that the opposition will put aside a budget for the Air Force One jet and his many other perks.

Or Finland’s PM. The opposition says the country is very competitive, does well on the Corruption Index and so on, and so let’s hire the Finnish PM to become our PM. We pay him as low as he is paid in Finland. When he comes over, he will take a look at our system and say: “Oh, your system is different. Your taxes are too low. Increase them. ”

Finland has a combined marginal top income tax rate of 60 per cent. In their system, they have not only the individual tax but also the municipal tax. It also has a VAT – the equivalent of our GST – of 22 per cent. His pay is low but the tax burden on the people is very high. If the opposition hire him and his take on his system, they must be prepared to go to the voters and ask for higher income tax rates and also higher GST.

I hope our voters are wise to discern the national interest.

Sir, I wonder what the top people in the private sector, who are of ministerial potential and have a sense of duty, must be making of the public reaction to the salary revision. I will not be surprised if they draw this conclusion: They can keep their money. Life is too short. I will stick to the private sector and enjoy my better pay and my more luxurious life.

Sir, I started my speech by saying that we should not lose sight of the human dimension in this debate.

By this, I don’t mean only the leaders, but also the people.

In the end, if we are not able to attract exceptional leaders who can ensure that Singapore continues to survive and prosper, it will be the people who suffer. And by then, even if you want to pay the highest salaries possible for good government, it may well be too late.

» Have your say on this and other issues in our forum pages