Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
PM Lee leads by example
It was reported in Channel News Asia that PM Lee will freeze his own pay for the next 5 years and donate away the pay increases in these 5 years. Read the full story here.
I am extremely heartened by PM Lee’s move. Maybe some people are still going to blast him for doing it as a belated PR stunt, but I think that as a leader of the country, he has done the right thing. And, I respect him for doing that. It shows that at least the leader of the country is not out of touch with reality. He has reclaimed some of the moral authority that the government has lost regarding this whole ministerial pay increase business.
In the Analects, the Confucius said this of a government leader:
å曰：“苟æ£å…¶èº«çŸ£ï¼ŒäºŽä»Žæ”¿ä¹Žä½•æœ‰ï¼Ÿä¸èƒ½æ£å…¶èº«ï¼Œå¦‚æ£äººä½•ï¼Ÿâ€
Translated, the above line says: “If one is able to correct oneself, what is so difficult about governance? If one cannot even correct oneself, how does he expect to correct others?”
Indeed, PM Lee understands the importance of leadership by example. This is the kind of leader that followers will gladly obey and stick with through thick and thin. To quote another line from the Analects:
å曰：“其身æ£ï¼Œä¸ä»¤è€Œè¡Œï¼›å…¶ä¸æ£ï¼Œè™½ä»¤ä¸ä»Žã€‚â€
Translated, it says: “If one is moral and upright, people will follow without being ordered. If one is immoral and corrupted, people will disobey despite being ordered.”
I hope that the other ministers will take their cue from the Prime Minister and do the same. If such are the characters of all our government leaders, then I’m prepared to stake my future and life with Singapore. If not, no amount of money or glory will stop me from leaving Singapore.
Afterthought:
I hope that SPH and the other MPs DO NOT do the cheer leading like they did for the GST offset package. It will leave a very disgusting aftertaste if it happens and any goodwill from Singaporeans generated as a result of the PM’s voluntary gesture would disappear in smoke.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 11/04/2007 at 8:08 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 4 years ago
Mm just a thought
- Do you think this is planned?
- Or a decision to salvage the mistake made?
Someone has asked why is it Mr Teo who announced the salary review & not PM. Is it part of polictical plot? Let Mr Teo be the bad man (anyway he does not hv such a bad impression as compared to our PM) and PM be a good man to build rapport with the citizens.
about 4 years ago
I don’t know if it’s planned, and I’m not very inclined to go into conspiracy theories. I think we should give the credit when it’s due. Clearly, PM deserves credit for setting a good example.
Mr Teo is the minister in charge for civil service, so it is only natural that he announce the changes, especially when the announcement includes the general civil servant as well, not just ministers.
about 4 years ago
I think we should look at the policy announcements altogether. GST hike, pay hike, PA, FT, Corp tax reduction, CPF Hike.
Just one act alone by LHL means nothing when you look at the big picture. Where are they taking singapore to? How is GDP measured? Why link pay to GDP when most of GDP is government spending and FDI? This is really hypocritical. Really singapore inc.
about 4 years ago
Mad Salary,
I think I would like to look at PM Lee’s gesture as a personal thing, and not linked with the other government policies. While it is arguable that given his status, whatever PM Lee does will be judged together with his governmental policies, nonetheless, we should try not to see Lee Hsien Loong the PM and Lee Hsien Loong the person as one and the same.
It’s just like in the army, there are some really strict and mean sergeant-majors but when they are out of the army camp, they are actually very nice people. Sometimes, the nature of the job makes it hard for people to behave in their job the way they normally would.
I’m not defending PM Lee the politician/government leader, but I’m defending the person. To voluntarily freeze his own pay when he doesn’t have to says something. And I believe that we should not be ungenerous in praise, just like how we should not be stingy in criticisms.
about 4 years ago
Hi,
This would help their PR a lot.
Let’s take a step back and look at the situation. A debate over ministers’ pay hikes rages, then the PM announces this.
That doesn’t mean that we should stop the debate, just because the PM won’t get a pay raise, and charities benefit from it.
But if we put so much pressure on the govt. that they don’t go ahead with the raise, the charities won’t benefit.
Nice move, Dear Leader.
about 4 years ago
Of course, that’s just pure speculation.
about 4 years ago
Michael,
Of course we should not stop the debate. But I think we also have to be a little less cynical sometimes. Too much of anything is never good.
about 4 years ago
I commend his personal decision. Just as we must applaud anyone donating any monies to charity, especially since it’s not quite chump change.
about 4 years ago
True, at least he makes the effort
about 4 years ago
I wish I could be as generous as you Aaron, but since I can’t help being skeptical, the least I could do is not to make it personal.
Let’s look at the technicalities shall we?
Is this any different from the GST in principle? That is, taking from the poor to help the poor and in the process, the one who makes the “sacrifice” by donating his salary gets the credit, when in actual fact taxpayers are bearing the cost + income tax related costs.
Bear in mind also that effectively he still got his raise, so in future, when the salary revisions are due again, he can use the current revised salary as the new base for future increases. And anytime between now and then, if he chooses, he has the right to change his mind about donating.
What is the point of raising his salary if he is going to “freeze” it? Is it a real freeze? I am inclined to think it is PR and damage control. It’s either that or his political leverage.
Perhaps we can all go to our bosses now and ask for a pay raise so we can donate to our favorite charities.
about 4 years ago
shoestring,
Well, you are right on technicalities, but we should bear in mind that PM Lee doesn’t make decisions alone. If everyone else in the cabinet wants an increase, he also can’t do anything about it. Now we should see who is not willing to do the same as PM Lee. We might have an idea who are the ones backing the increase for their own benefit.
about 4 years ago
Have you read this analysis on gssq’s blog?
http://gssq.blogspot.com/2007/04/on-pm-lees-statement-that-he-would.html
about 4 years ago
Is the money forgone used to buy moral authority? I just heard on the news that LHL said, something like its not logical that the person making the most sacrifice should be the PM, and it just puzzles me about the contradiction and dichotomy of the man and the PM. Yes the money goes to charity, but how much more is withheld by his government’s policies?
about 4 years ago
Takchek,
I’ve read Gabriel’s analysis, and I’m going to give you a chinese saying to sum up what I think.
以å°äººä¹‹å¿ƒï¼Œåº¦å›å之腹
I believe you know the meaning of this saying, but I’m going ahead to explain anyway. Translated it means “to use the perspective of a despicable person to doubt the good intentions of a gentleman”.
I don’t deny that PM Lee will get tax breaks. Since we are on the question of tax and math, I’m going to work out the parts that in your link that Gabriel left out.
If PM Lee did not donate and his salary didn’t increase, PM Lee will get $2.5 million – $0.5 million (20% tax based on $2.5 million) = $2.0 million.
Based on Gabriel’s figures, after donation, PM Lee gets $3.1 million – $0.6 million (in donation) – $0.38 million (20% tax based on $1.9 million taxable income as calculated by Gabriel) = $2.12 million.
PM Lee is only marginally better after donation with an increase in his income as compared to his income not increasing and him not making a donation. So which is a better option in terms of overall benefit? Now you will understand why I gave you that Chinese saying.
about 4 years ago
Mad Salary,
I’m afraid I don’t know the full picture as well. I believe there’s something going on that’s beyond our comprehension because we don’t have complete information. I guess with what information we have now, we should be gracious and accept that PM Lee has good intentions. If more information surface that says otherwise, it’s not too late to criticise then.
about 4 years ago
I’m not the only on who posts on my blog.
about 4 years ago
Apologies. I always thought it was a personal blog, not a group blog. Anyway, I disagree with that calculation. It’s not comparing like for like.
about 4 years ago
Anyhow your analysis assumes his pay rise is free, and ignores what happens after 5 years.
And I still have no idea what that chinese saying has to do with anything. Besides being an ad hominem attack it also begs the question by assuming the roles of the despicable person and gentleman are fixed.
A better thing to do would have the pay increases apply only to new ministers (grandfathering), but of course that will never happen.
about 4 years ago
It’s primarily a personal blog, but other people post from time to time too.
What like for like? I don’t know what you’re talking about.
about 4 years ago
the right thing to do is to repudiate pay hike. Period.
about 4 years ago
Agagooga,
Then you are operating on the assumption that Lee Hsien Loong will continue to be the PM for dunno how many years to come, which is not a fair assumption. That he freezes his salary for 5 years is fair because he doesn’t not know whether he will still have a job by the next GE.
The chinese saying basically just highlights the point that if one so chooses, any good intention can be turned into a bad one through some spin., that’s all. I’m not going to debate with you about the technicalities of the saying because it’s not what I intend to do in the first place.
about 4 years ago
Dear Aaron,
I would say that he appears to be a gentleman. No politican will do anything without thinking about what he will gain after he puts in his efforts. He had said his piece, I will wait for his actions. As the old man said, this is the real world. I hope that you and I will remember annually to ask him for this list of donations that he has made. I hope that it will not be classified as “state secret”. Again.
about 4 years ago
Agagooga,
To compare how much PM Lee saves in taxes after donation is not a fair comparison. We should compare whether he is better off with the donation after an increase in salary and had the salary increase not occur because what is of interest is whether there is a difference between the two.
To me it makes no sense to calculate how much PM Lee had saved in taxes because he doesn’t get to keep most of it anyway: it’s going to someone else for a good cause.
about 4 years ago
Alan,
Ideally, yes. But unfortunately, it’s not possible (don’t forget there are two more figures sitting on top of the PM).
about 4 years ago
Another Reader,
Excellent suggestion. He should provide the list of beneficiaries he donated to so as to be completely transparent about things. After all, é€ä½›é€åˆ°è¥¿ (if we want to see the buddha off, we should see him all the way to the west, meaning if one wants to do something, do it thoroughly).
about 4 years ago
are you saying he went against their wishes, and took a personal ‘sacrifice’ on donating his increment?
i think there is more than meets the eye
about 4 years ago
Alan,
I’m not insinuating that. I’m just saying that with all the information that I have now, the move seems genuine, so why not give the benefit of doubt for now? It’s not too late to be critical if more information surface later on proving that it’s a sham, right?
about 4 years ago
Doing the Right Thing.
Hi Aaron,
It’s interesting to read this post by you.
May I draw your attention to this news article about the PM of Japan…
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/29/japan-politics.html
He took a 30% pay cut (and he doesn’t earn very much in the first place) to prove his commitment to trimming the budget.
Now that is a leader I respect.
If one already earn’s 2.5mil, giving away 500k is not very much. Especially when one receives TWICE that in tax exemption.
about 4 years ago
insens,
I don’t think I want to comment on where the line should be drawn. As far as I’m concerned, by donating away the increase, I think in principle PM Lee has done his part. But of course, he can do more to make us Singaporeans respect and salute him even more. The question now really is whether he thinks it’s necessary to gain more goodwill. After all, in every crisis lies opportunities, and he now has the chance to make the most of things.
about 4 years ago
FYI, LHL is employing the same tactics as GCK did when the latter raised his own pay. Have you forgotten about this already? What’s new?
I suppose you are too young and naive too know that it’s all wayang!
about 4 years ago
That’s right I remember GCT did just that last time. Thank Davis.
Again not to say GCT had hidden motives, as most people respect the man, but in LHL’s case, I’d rather suspend judgement, I won’t even give him respect for this political move. (Political it is, whether we like it or not)
Anyway the point of the whole excercise is to what? retain ministars? afterall they got the bulk of the raise. Regardless of whether we lack information to make judgements, the real problem is how many people believe that singapore is totally different from all the other countries that our form of government is so special to have such policies? How many believe that this actually works? Remember history is replete with examples of governments corrupting themselves and this is the road it takes.
about 4 years ago
Also LHL said that the discount they got from the appartment sale that made headlines, they gave it to charity, that they were clean. We all know that discounts by developers offered to choice customers is common, but still I would call it a lapse of judgement, they forgot that they not only have to be clean, but “appear” to be clean. I don’t think there is a problem with the discount but where will we draw the line that it is a bribe or not.
Anyway all this would not have mattered and we would not be having this debate if all opposition had not been demolished, scaring many and robbing the nation of those more reserved talents.
about 4 years ago
According to CNA (Financial sacrifice in public service needed: PM Lee
By Dominique Loh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 11 April 2007 2114 hrs) this was what LHL said:
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says he agrees with some Members of Parliament that as leaders of Singapore, financial sacrifice is necessary.
Now one wonders if LHL knows the difference between “sacrifice” and “forgoing” something.
Maybe the fable of a pig and a hen discussing how they would contribute to a poor human’s breakfast, might clarify what “sacrifice” means.
The human suggested the hen contributes eggs and then suggested that the pig contributes ham/bacon.
Now Aaron, tell me which of the two is really making a “sacrifice”?
Do you honest believe that LHL by foregoing his pay rise is making any sacrifice? In turn, worthy of your praise that he has reclaim “moral”?
Come on, you can’t be that blind to such shenanigan, can you?
If so, apologies for being blunt, but if this is the kind of education you are getting in Singapore schools, then frankly, I might as well not return.
about 4 years ago
It’s a good exercise in PR. I’m a natural cynic when it comes to actions carried out by people in their official capacity as politicians.
There’s two sides of the argument, that firstly, this was planned, and secondly, a more hopeful theory that paints a picture that they do actually listen to the ground and react to the chatter per se.
Whatever the case, I doubt it has made much effort in repairing the social compact that has been stressed so much at the seams. Your average Ah Seng can only take that much of being told that the govt has built up Singapore and yada yada, deserves a pay raise.
A large segment of the electorate do not really bother about the external ramifications, and plainly, to them it’s just a case of being rich and still wanting more.
Hard luck then for the PM.
about 4 years ago
Davis,
I don’t think it’s unfair for PM Lee to set a 5 year time frame because he cannot be sure whether he can still be in politics after 5 years. I’m young, but I don’t think I’m naive. The problem is not with me, but with the rest of the electorate. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a good gesture, but that does not equate to my support for the increase in ministerial pay. It does take the edge of somewhat, but if you have been following my blog, you will know that I don’t support the increase. I’m just being a fair commenter (I think) by giving PM Lee credit for at least trying to do something right.
about 4 years ago
Mad Salary,
I’m not about to reverse my judgment that I don’t see justification for the increase. But, I’m still going to stand by the fact that PM Lee is doing something right. I don’t think it’s fair that we damn him that he does, and damn him if he doesn’t.
about 4 years ago
Liu Seow Ching,
PM Lee doesn’t need to voluntarily take a wage freeze. That he’s willing to should be at least given some credit, although I am not suggesting we give him martyrdom (which I suspect ST will give in a few hours time).
Like I said to Davis, I think it’s a good gesture, but it does not equals me supporting the ministerial salary increase. I did say that he managed to reclaim moral authority with this gesture, which on hindsight, I should really have been more accurate and saying some moral authority instead.
I don’t mind you being blunt, but I think it is important not to criticise for the sake of criticising. While it’s true that PM Lee could have gone further, that does not in any way devalue his current gesture, which is pretty substantial ($600,000 is no small absolute amount).I think that you are being very bigoted, which is something that my lecturers in NUS always warn against. And, to be blunt in return, it is none of my business whether you want to come back or not.
about 4 years ago
CelluloidReality,
Yes indeed, hard luck. I don’t envy the PM really. He gets quite alot of money, but given the amount of curses thrown behind his back, it’s really bad karma. It might just lead to a shorter lifespan.
about 4 years ago
Praising for praising sake does not make for fair commentator. This is what a makes one a sycophant or someone with a muddle mind.
Moral authority is like pregnancy. You are either one or not. No such thing as half pregnant.
Look let’s get real, LHL setting a five-years time frame is hardly a jesture. He has been in politics for more ten years during which time he had already drawn enough in financial reward to set him for life with luxury not just subsistence. With the combined salary from his wife, what is forgoing an amount for five years?
Is he loosing his bacon or eggs.?
Get real man.
about 4 years ago
Aaron, I don’t think we are damning him. He is damned by circumstances. I hope you can understand the difference.
For example, a bad one perhaps, you can save one person from drowning, your mother or your (wife or maybe child since this is tough).
Filial peity (not saying you can’t love your mother) or love for your wife or child. Nobody will envy the person deciding.
about 4 years ago
Oh, what i’m trying to say is that this makes his gesture moot. I guess to most auntie, uncle, they may not look too deep into it and end up buying it.
about 4 years ago
Liu Seow Ching,
Of course praising for the sake of praising does not make a fair commentator. Neither does criticising for the sake of criticising.
Moral authority is absolute? It’s either you have it or you don’t? How about explaining further?
And why drag the wife in? Is is a problem that his wife is earning big bucks too? That’s being personal already, which hardly makes a convincing argument to me.
about 4 years ago
Aaron,
Interesting piece. I took the liberty to quote it in Asia Observer’s blog at
http://www.asiaobserver.com/blog/
John Einar Sandvand
Editor, Asia Observer
about 4 years ago
Mad Salary,
Of course I can understand the difference. All I’m saying is that between two equally tough choices, he’s made the one I think is better of the two. If he did not volunteer to freeze his own wages, people will say that he’s money-minded. Now that he volunteered to freeze his wages, people say it’s tokenism (well, I shouldn’t be surprised really, since peanuts are quite expensive in Singapore). I seriously think that he’s caught between a rock and a hard place, but given his current circumstance, I think he’s at least doing the correct thing. Note that this is a different issue from landing himself in the current circumstances in the first place.
about 4 years ago
Hi John,
Please feel free to do so. All content on this blog is published under Creative Commons, which basically allows anyone to reproduce what I write as long as it’s acknowledged.
about 4 years ago
Have you heard of diadatic analysis. It is a Scientific approach for validating the truthness of something. Now in essence what that means is that something can eventually be proof right or wrong from process that is essentially “criticism for criticism” sake. So criticism for criticisim sake is a good thing. I suggest you read this up. Anyway I am digressing.
Coming back to your moral authority question and specifically LHL gesture. What is it about this forgoing of his pay that he can claim to have regain, as you put it, “some” moral authority.
Do you mean that by doing this he would be able to tell a lowly paid person to take more pay cuts in order to stay competitive? Just because he sacrifice five-years worth of an already humongous pay?
I mean it is like the chicken, having given a small portion of her clutches of eggs, than claiming to have now having SOME moral authority to criticising the pig for not giving his or her bacon/ham. IN CASE YOU DON’T KNOWN bacon/ham are products of slaugthered pigs.
So let me turn the issue back to you what is the “some” moral authority that he has gained from the gesture — I say again “gesture”?
Does moral authority not entails sacrificies on one’s part?
PS: Hey even LHL is unemployed he has his wife’s, quite possibly, humongous salary to support his life of luxury not just subsistence. So the question is, what sacrifices has he made.
about 4 years ago
Seow Ching,
I have no knowledge of diadatic analysis. And I never said criticising is bad. All I’m saying is that constantly criticising will make a person lose perspective because too much of anything is never good.
I think there is a need for a definition of moral authority and I hope you can provide what you think is moral authority. In this case, moral authority to me is the trust vested in PM Lee by the people to lead them. And since the general public is unhappy with the huge increase in ministerial salary, he has responded with a personal commitment to freeze his own wages. That is being responsive to the public opinion, and thus I believe PM Lee has regained some moral authority.
While it is arguable that PM Lee could have tried and reverse the decision in the first place, I am of the opinion that he has no final say. The decision ultimately still lies with Parliament, and if Parliament so chooses to vote for the increase, there’s nothing he can do. I think we need to be clear how much person control PM Lee has over the issue.
And if taking a $600,000 pay cut isn’t a sacrifice, tell me what is a sacrifice? It’s not a big sacrifice in terms of proportion, but it isn’t a small one as well. It’s not fair to say that PM Lee has made NO sacrifice. Why don’t you suggest how much you think would constitute a sacrifice and why? And if you are the PM, will you be willing to work for that amount of money? Be honest.
about 4 years ago
Wow boy LHL is not taking a pay cut. Let’s be clear on this one. He is not reducing his existing pay.
May I remind you he is already drawing more than 1 mil per year. HE IS ALREADY LOADED. He has already been drawing that kind of salary since CGK last revised it more than 5-years ago.
Me provide one a definition of moral authority. Hey I have already use a simple fable to explain it and you still don’t get it. Well I really don’t know what to say.
Let me put it this way, in terms of investment example. Let’s say that I have money, which I can put in the bank I can get $600K return in yearly interest. Instead I decided to put it in a stock market, say capital protected, which may or may not return what I get in if I put in bank. However, I could potentially get more in returns.
Now LHL forgo is $600K now but if he remains in power after the next five years he can easily restored his pay. Mind you, the pay increase now is increments anyway so in five years time he’ll be getting his fully pay. Now by forgoing this $600K now, he makes gullible people vote (probably not needed) for him in the next election, hey the $600K now is investment. Quite possibly a good one.
about 4 years ago
A fable is not the same as a definition wor.
And you avoided my question:
Why don’t you suggest how much you think would constitute a sacrifice and why? And if you are the PM, will you be willing to work for that amount of money? Be honest.
Plus, I would like to hear your solution to the issue. You seem to be very knowledgeable.
about 4 years ago
Dear Aaron
It’s disppointing to see you swallow the misleading oxymoronic headline so easily.
You can ‘t FREEZE a pay and have a pay INCREASE to donate away.
He’s still having a pay rise, but has verbally committed to donating a sum that corresponds to his pay rise. His personal gain is as such:
Our ministers are paid a pension on top of their salaries. How this pension is counted is mystery to us, but it should be based on salary. By donating this sum that corresponds to his pay rise, he’ll thus probably still benefit from the increase in pension, and at the same time, get huge tax rebates from donations.
The political advantages are:
- passing off a nett personal monetary gain as a sacrificial act, which many Singaporeans have gobbled gullibly
- softening the political arguments of the whole ministers’pay increase issue with a personal commitment which is beyond legislation.
My second point is important. This donation thing is now indirectly used as a tool to make the pay rise – a political and legal decision – more acceptable. But donation being a private act, cannot be verified and questioned by law or by the parliament. No one will have the right to ask PM Lee, not even the President, how much, to whom, and when he has donated.
A political decision should not be backed by personal, unaccountable justifications.
This itself is an irresponsable and misleading political move, which is far from any moral standards.