The 2nd principle

I come back to the 2nd principle.

In deriving the proposed ministerial salary, the Review Committee benchmarked it against the median salary of the top 1000 earners and applied a 40% discount. So it started at the top and moved its way down.

The benchmark figure it arrived at was : S$55,000 per month

(Note : the Committee's recommended starting salary for ministers is lower than the benchmark, at S$46,750.)

The Workers' Party disagreed with this approach in principle.

Mr Chen Shao Mao said that "if this benchmark is accepted by the government, it would continue to send the message to potential office holders and Singaporeans that top pay is the benchmark by which the importance of the office is to be judged, and the value of political office can in the final analysis be ¬¬¬monetised. It cannot be. Not even at the highest income levels."

Fair enough. Workers' Party says we should apply the principle of political service first and then MPs as elected representatives of the people should be the starting point for the determination of ministerial salary.

The Workers Party then applied the principle of political service first and the figure they have come with is : $55,000 per month.

So the opposition is advocating the same monthly salary or more than that recommended by the Review Committee, depending on which figure you take.

The differences in position therefore lie in the bonus amounts. However here again, the differences are not great.

Yesterday Mr Yaw said Workers' Party had two other proposals to enhance the "twin towers of accountability and transparency :-

(a) an independent commission when the PM seeks to change how political pay is determined;

(b) make the findings of such commission subject to debate in Parliament and to parliamentary approval.

This is exactly what we are doing now. The proposals before us today were done by an independent review committee. It is called a committee and not a commission, but it is the same thing.

The committee's recommendations are now the subject of this motion in Parliament "That this House endorses Paper Cmd 1 of 2012 on salaries for a Capable and Committee Government" as the basis for setting the salaries of the President, Prime Minister, Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament, political appointment holders, and Members of Parliament."

Same difference. The twin towers of accountability and transparency are met.

There is really very little difference between the Opposition's position and the Review Committee's recommendations. There is also consensus on the principles for the remuneration of political office holders.

But at the end of the day, from the public's perspective, the issue of Ministerial salaries is not about logic, economics or formulas. It's about the connection between Singaporeans and their elected leaders. In any age, in any country and in any culture, what do people want of their leaders? They want good, capable people of integrity who can provide leadership and have the right technical competencies. But more than that, they want leaders who they can identify with and, more importantly, leaders who can identify with them. They want leaders who empathise with them and who feel their pain, their worries. who will listen and address their concerns, and provide solutions to the problems that people face. They want leaders they can connect with.

And the thing is this: because most people do not earn this kind of salaries, the instinctive feeling is: how can you connect with me? How can you feel what I feel when you don't have the same financial constraints that I have? How do you know what it feels like to live day to day in fear that you cannot pay your rent, or your mortgage, or for something as basic as food? How can you know what it's like to be in fear that you could lose your job because someone else, a foreigner, is younger and cheaper option for your employer, when you as a minister have a job that's secure with a high pay? This, I believe, is the real issue with the ministerial salaries.

The answer however, does not lie pegging ministers salaries so low that everyone has to struggle alike. No, the answer lies in this: that the ministers, with the abilities that you have, with skills that you have acquired, must place these skills and abilities at the service of Singaporeans and help solve their issues for them. People do not object to good pay when they feel it is well-earned, and if they feel that a minister is really working hard for the people. Where they get upset is if they feel someone gets a good pay just because he or she happened to land the job of a minister, and they do not see a real and visible effort on the part of that person.

What this means is that each and every minister must show that he or she is truly indeed deserving of the high pay, and that the policies you initiate and implement must address Singaporeans' needs. Equally important is a minister's connection with people. People respond well to the ministers who are in tune with issues of concern to Singaporeans, who identify the solutions and take action on behalf of people. These are the ones that Singaporeans are happy to work with to achieve a better result for all. Singaporeans do not appreciate it if a minister talks down to them or in a way which they feel is patronising or condescending, or who brushes aside their concerns or worries.

This to me is the key to public acceptance of high ministerial salaries : Sincerity, compassion and high performances by Ministers, coupled with a real connection and close bond to the people you serve.