Realistic pay package to get the best into Parliament

The Straits Times, April 23, 2007
By Sue-Ann Chia


MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew found the recent 'hoo-ha' over ministerial pay hike 'completely unreal'.

He understood the emotions associated with this issue, but there were larger issues at stake such as the need to pay well to attract top talent to run the country.

He recalled the financial sacrifices the first-generation leaders made but noted that it was a different world now.

'If we had not made these changes on salaries and benchmarked it to the market, we would not have this situation today,' he said.

'The problem we now face is how to attract more talent, how to headhunt and to persuade the best to come into Parliament,' he said, pointing out that talented Singaporeans were much sought- after abroad.

He told his audience later that if there was no realistic compensation package, it would be difficult to recruit capable people 'to come into Parliament, change lifestyles, lose privacy, take on a job for less pay. Onerous.'

And the price tag of ministerial pay is not high, compared to the country's worth. If Singapore, with a $210 billion GDP, was a company going for an initial public offering, it would be worth $4 trillion.

'You mismanage this, it's not your shareholder who will lose money - four and a half million people will suffer, of whom three million plus are Singaporeans, of whom 80 per cent cannot migrate,' he said.

That is why he advised former prime minister Goh Chok Tong to peg ministers' pay to private sector top earners in 1994.

But the first ministerial salary revision was much earlier. Mr Lee recounted an incident, involving the late Mr Eddie Barker, who was law minister.

'He was a lawyer, doing fine and he did not want to stand for election. I said, no, Eddie, if the PAP loses, you think you will be doing a good law practice or do you think the country will be upside down?' said Mr Lee.

Mr Barker thought about it, and stood for election in 1963. But by the late 1970s, Mr Barker told Mr Lee that he wanted to go back to law to earn and be able to pay off the mortgage on a home he had bought in Queen Astrid Park.

But Mr Lee convinced him to stay on, and undertook what was then the first review of salaries.

But a participant asked Mr Lee about the need for greater public scrutiny of ministerial salaries - similar to how the performance of corporate chiefs like United Overseas Bank chairman Wee Cho Yaw is subject to shareholders' scrutiny.

Mr Lee replied: 'I don't think you understand the enormous checks and counter-checks there are on ministers. If a minister mismanages his job, the impact is felt very quickly.'

Citing the example of the post of home affairs minister, he said: 'You get the wrong minister there, the police force goes haywire, the crime rate goes up, terrorism seeps through, disaster.

'I would like to believe that Singaporeans are not that naive. If you have a dud minister, he cannot hold his ground.'

Mr Lee also spoke of the difficulties involved in turning a private citizen into a candidate, MP and then minister:

'First, he has to be an MP. He's got to win an election. He learns to meet people, house to house, talk to them; Meet-the-People sessions, solve their problems.

'He's got to attend to his work and it's all the time. You can take a holiday, but you take your laptop along and important things, you are kept informed. And when you are informed, sometimes you feel you got to intervene...there is no let-up.'

As for public scrutiny, he said: 'The transparency really is the performance of the ministry and the ability to have everything on board. Auditors, everything checked. Hands absolutely clean.'

Ultimately, their performance is judged by the Prime Minister: 'He chooses the ministers and he is chosen by his constituents and by the MPs.'

And in a direct response to the point the questioner made about the scrutiny that someone like Mr Wee can come under, Mr Lee said: 'Wee Cho Yaw's job, yes, he's shrewd but he succeeds because of the PAP and he knows that.'




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


'You mismanage this, it's not your shareholder who will lose money - four and a half million people will suffer, of whom three million plus are Singaporeans, of whom 80 per cent cannot migrate.'