Six degrees of ministerial pay?

[Andylkkg]

By Susan Long, Enterprise Editor

 

THE upcoming General Election is possibly one of the most consequential in Singapore's history. Not only because Singaporeans will choose their fourth generation of leaders - as People's Action Party ministers have framed the event - but because it may usher in a transition to greater political contestation and pluralism.

 

But cynics see PAP's allowing more competition as a tactical calculation, even a necessary concession, because some parts of the ground - especially the online community - are turning out to be quite sour.

 

A scroll through local online socio-political blogs these days throws up not just the perennial grouses over rising costs, foreign worker policies and congestion, but a disconcertingly malevolent streak that has caught many political watchers off-guard.

 

Sure, in past elections, the issue of high ministerial salaries has predictably surfaced. But most people bought - at least to some extent - the ruling party's justification that high ministerial pay was the price for good government.

 

But increasingly, a phenomenon has been observed here called 'Six degrees of ministerial pay' - whereby all political arguments made in Singapore invariably originate from or lead back to the issue of public sector pay.

 

A quick scan of blogs or netizens' remarks on any given day will reveal this peculiar trait. Be it good news such as Singapore achieving another world first or business-friendly accolade, or say, the floods on Orchard Road, the escape of Mas Selamat, or the candidateship of Tin Pei Ling, all and sundry issues today seem to be viewed through the monochromatic lens of pay.

 

When Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Boon Heng cited the parable of Jesus and the lepers as an example of how little appreciation MPs receive from constituents, the immediate retort on Mr Brown.com was: 'Mr Lim, you got salary + pay rise, Jesus where got?'

 

Similarly, when Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong contrasted Singaporeans' complaints of sporadic floods here with the stoical Japanese response to last month's earthquake and tsunami, local blogs chimed in that PAP ministers, being more highly paid than Japanese ministers, should be subject to higher levels of performance standards.

 

Every perceived misstep - whether real or imagined - by the government has been subject to a similar critical refrain: That well-paid ministers should have anticipated and pre-empted the mistakes well in advance.

 

It's not clear how widespread this cynicism is and whether what we're reading online is the work of just a small group of highly vexatious and critical people. To be sure, there are some who are willing to take them on, including one reader of The Straits Times whose letter was published last week. He had argued that what was important was not how much ministers were paid but what it cost taxpayers to run the government, and on this score, he concluded that Singaporeans had a very good deal, compared to many developed countries.

 

But for many value-conscious tax-payers, high pay is commensurable with high expectations. This entrenched mindset is further reinforced by the ruling party itself.

 

Over the past few days, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has advanced the analogy used by opposition MP Low Thia Khiang on how voting in the opposition is a form of 'insurance' against potential failure of the PAP, adding that Singaporeans may end up paying a 'high premium' but find that when they try to 'cash in' the policy, the opposition 'can't deliver'.

 

It is regrettable because this dollar-sign focus has become the primary lens through which many Singaporeans view office holders. Political watchers fear this lens has a distortive effect in that it creates the widely-held expectation that ministers should be infallible. And of course, no one can hope to live up to that.

 

Besides being an impossible yardstick, bureaucrats lament that such an expectation is also unconducive for governance. It reduces the public's tolerance of errors and limits the amount of manoeuvrability that governments needs to govern effectively.

 

In the long run, political watchers fear this "Six degrees of ministerial pay" cynicism will canker the political discourse in Singapore as people begin to question the motivations and moral authority of office-holders.

 

As has often been said, the best use of money as a motivator is to pay people enough to take the issue of money off the table, so that people can focus on the work rather than on the cash.

 

But instead of taking the issue of money off the table, as raising ministerial pay was intended to do, it has unfortunately become THE issue foremost on the minds of many.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Your critical thinking cap is sought.

[Maroon5]

boring style of writing, if u ask me.

[Park88]

justify ministers pay in a round about way