I’m no expert in philosophy, but I think that an understanding of some of the tools used in ethical analysis would be helpful in understanding all the various issues involved in the great minister pay rise debate. Fearfully Opinionated has dealt with the ethical arguments briefly in one of his entries, but I would like go into a more detailed explanation in simplified terms so that anyone can understand, or at least I hope anyone will be able to understand after reading this entry.

The two tools I’m going to use to deconstruct the issue of ministerial pay increase are the consequentialist perspective and the deontological perspective. It is my opinion that the PAP-led government is arguing for the increase in ministerial pay from the consequentialist perspective, while the general public is arguing against the increase from the deontological perspective.

Let’s start with the consequentialist perspective. The term ‘consequentialist’ clearly has its roots in the word ‘consequences’. Therefore, consequentialist arguments usually centers around the outcome, and that any ethical consideration should always be determined on the basis of consequences. By now, it should be very clear that the arguments being advanced by the PAP-led government are all from the consequentialist position. I quote the news report of Channel News Asia on what MM Lee to illustrate the government’s consequentialist position:

“He (MM Lee) said if this S$46 million was cut to maybe S$36 million or S$26 million, the country would save S$20 million but in the process, would jeopardise an economy of S$210 billion.” (Parenthetical information added)

“‘So for the average family earning S$1,500-S$3,000, we are talking of astronomical figures but 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,’ said Mr Lee.”

“He (MM Lee) said: ‘The cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government… your asset values will disappear, your apartments will be worth a fraction of what it is, your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other persons’ countries – foreign workers.’” (Parenthetical information added)

So, what’s the problem with giving an extra $20 million to the ministers as long as the ministers ensure that the economy continues to be prosperous? I’ll now borrow a phrase from Bill Clinton’s 1992 successful campaign against George H.W. Bush: “It’s the economy, stupid”. Nothing else matters as long as the consequence (in this case, the economy) continues to prosper. Therefore, increasing a minister’s pay by another million dollars is perfectly ethical.

Now, let’s examine the other ethical perspective, the deontological perspective. This line of argument is concerned with moral duty or obligation. This is the argument that has been employed by the general public to oppose the astronomical increase in the salary of ministers. A cursory look on the blog entries about the issue on blog aggregators such as Intelligent Singaporean would reveal many writings that employ the argument of ministers having a “duty to serve the country”.

From the deontological perspective, one would argue that political office is a moral obligation and calling to the country. As it stands now, Singaporean ministers are already receiving salary considered to be very high by Singaporean standards. Why should there be a need to further increase the salary of ministers tremendously for something that is a moral duty? It’s perhaps not humane for a minister to work purely out of duty. The minister needs to eat as well. However, is it ethically justifiable to peg the wages of a public servant whose job is a moral duty to top earners in the private sector whose job is just to make more money?

Having briefing discussed the two main ethical perspectives, it’s perhaps a good thing to stop ourselves and ponder which ethical perspective are we more persuaded by, and why? Is consequences always the most important thing? Of what value is moral duty and obligation compared to economic outcomes? Hopefully, this entry will help to convince convince everyone of the rightness or wrongness of their current position on the issue.

Notes:

I’ve dealt with the concepts of consequentialist and deontological arguments very superficially for the sake of simplicity. It is recommended that one does further readings on the two ethical perspectives. I recommend reading the following two links to get a better summary of the key concepts and criticisms of the two perspectives.

Consequentialist perspective (referred to as teleological perspective in this link): http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blfaq_phileth_teleo.htm

Deontological perspective: http://atheism.about.com/od/ethicalsystems/a/Deontological.htm