Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
The Singaporean money culture
Two respectable bloggers, Mr Wang and the Kway Teow Man have discussed the issue of the impending revision of ministerial pay salaries in view of the good economy.
I think the both of them made very good discussions in their respective pieces, and there is little I need to add to their observations. The issue of the ministerial pay salaries did lead me to think about how much money is prized in Singaporean culture.
Our government leaders have constantly emphasized that we need to pay our talents well, because if we don’t do that, we lose them to the private sector. Now, this is a very dangerous line of argument. You mean to say that our government leaders’ motivation to serve is because the remuneration offered is comparable to that of the private sector?
While I agree that we cannot pay our government leaders peanuts because they indeed shoulder many heavy responsibilities, I cannot agree with the rhetoric that we have to pay them well because of the possibility of losing them to the private sector. Government and public office is not just any job like that in the corporate world. It is more of a calling to serve the greater good of your nation.
However, in Singapore, because of obsession with money culture, even serving the country by stepping forward into public office is to be measured in terms of how much the pay is relative to the private sector. I stand by the idea that if you want to hold public office, the last thing that should be on your mind is remuneration.
It never fails to amuse me that our Prime Minister is probably more well paid than the President of the United States. While I am respectful of the heavy responsibilities of our PM, I don’t think that his stress levels and responsibilities are comparable to the president of the United States. Based on our money culture, the American president should logically be paid at least a hundred times of what our PM gets annually.
Well, the president of the United States is well-known to be underpaid. Look at how little money Bill Clinton had when he stepped down. However, it seems to me that the Americans understand that government and public office is a calling requiring personal sacrifices, and not some job like any other. One should not expect to become extremely rich as a result of holding public office. If one does become rich after a lifetime in public office, something is very wrong indeed.
I think that our government leaders should stop emphasizing on how lucrative the private sector pays compared to public sector. In doing so, we are perpetuating the money culture. We will never be sure whether someone who is holding public office is there for the money, or there to serve. In fact, if you pay miserably and still someone is willing to step up there and serve, this is a person that the country can depend on.
Human greed knows no bounds. It doesn’t matter how much money we pay. By emphasizing material compensation, we are just fueling greed. A greedy person has no allegiance to anyone else other than money. The next time a higher offer is being made, the greedy person will jump ship. If a person chooses to become a government official because it pays well, if an enemy offers to double or triple the amount, who can gurantee that the official won’t jump ship and take with him state secrets to the enemy?
Of course, the earlier example is pretty extreme, but it serves to highlight the danger in dabbling with money culture. The solution to problems is not always more money. More money doesn’t mean greater loyalty or less chances of being corrupt. Those with a strong sense of righteousness and commitment to public office won’t care less how much they are paid. Those without a sense of righteousness and commitment to public office will never be satisfied no matter how much they are paid.
As it is, I think our government ministers are already very well paid. Even an ordinary member of parliament gets more than 10k a month. How many Singaporeans are in such an income bracket? Relative to the Singaporean population, I believe that our government leaders are comfortably in the top quarter of Singapore society in terms of income bracket. Is this amount of money not enough for them to lead a reasonably good life in exchange for their public service? I don’t know what others think, but I think that there is a good balance already. To increase the salaries any more will send out the wrong signals about public office in Singapore.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 01/12/2006 at 10:26 am, 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 5 years ago
Aaron,
that’s a very good article.
If the leaders themselves don’t even set good example, why should they coax us into accepting peanuts ?? Not unless they are elite and protect by their own system.
It’s so pretty obvious to me that MP are there for money first, and sure enough, policy implement is also about money.
We people better not talk about Singapore dream but Singapore Nightmare with those money-faced MP and minister running the countries.
You pay peanut, you can peanut, but then ask when peanut ever is enough ?? Especially golden peanut.
If the country couldn’t get good ppl to serve the country, it imply that there something wrong with consitition, not globalization.
You probably right when you say paid Peter to rob Peter. Seem to me lately, ppl forget about shin corpse and optus loss, that’s what i called master of distraction. The positive news and propagada make ppl forgets the loss. In the next election, the same trick will be used.
about 5 years ago
MP is only one letter different from MCP (Male Chauvinist Pig)
The difference is the Cash deficit.(letter C).
Mps have no Cash deficit, given their super salary. Otherwise, MPs and MCPs are pretty much the same.
Disclaimer: There are many good MPs out there also, so this is just a satire on some of the “elite’ MPs out there.
about 5 years ago
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon†(Matthew 6:24).
[warning: shameless self-publicity below]
Coincidentally, I also wrote a piece on the proposed increase in civil service salaries. Those interested may go to http://searchingforenlightenment.blogspot.com/2006/11/post-no-94-money-minded-civil-servants.html
By the way, perhaps I’m nitpicking here, but in reference to your fifth paragraph, “obsession” is not spelt as “obesssion” (sic).
about 5 years ago
Hi Daniel,
Well, if history repeats itself, there’s no one else to blame but ourselves. Since the majority of Singaporeans like things a certain way, what can we do? After all, our elections are free and fair, and the will of the majority rules, no?
about 5 years ago
Hi LCC,
Thanks for pointing out the typo. I missed that one out when I was self-editing.
I guess the only people who are oblivious to the fact that more money doesn’t not translate to greater loyalty are the decision makers. Oh well.
about 5 years ago
Money makes the world go around
The world go around
The world go around…
about 5 years ago
Aaron wrote:
“The solution to problems is not always more money. More money doesn’t mean greater loyalty or less chances of being corrupt. Those with a strong sense of righteousness and commitment to public office won’t care less how much they are paid.”
Altruism and the calling to public service is crucial, as you say.
By that reasoning, there is absolutely no justification for doctors and nurses to be paid more than a comfortable living wage. $3000 per month is plenty (after all, doesn’t that add up to approximately the median wage?), and no healthcare worker should be paid more than this. It’s a calling and a commitment to public office, after all, and those with a strong sense of righteousness and commitment to public office won’t care less how much they are paid.
And actually, why *are* we paying civil servants so much anyway? Let’s cap that at $3000 too, the median salary of the population. They’re from the people, serving the people, and they should be paid the average salary of the people.
Do you support this line of argument? If not, why?
“I believe that our government leaders are comfortably in the top quarter of Singapore society in terms of income bracket. Is this amount of money not enough for them to lead a reasonably good life in exchange for their public service? I don’t know what others think, but I think that there is a good balance already. To increase the salaries any more will send out the wrong signals about public office in Singapore.”
Your benchmark figure of “top quarter” makes out to a cutoff household income of $7000, according to the General Household Survey 2005.
Should we cap pay for Ministers and Civil Servants at $7000 per month?
about 5 years ago
Dear Devil’s Advocate,
Thanks for play that role. However, I think you missed my point. I never suggested a fixed amount. My point is whether there is a need to increase the pay of our ministers at all. I do not know how much they are paid, which is why I put the amount they are earning at top 25% income bracket. If the actual case is that our ministers are already in the top 5%, then do we really need to increase their income? How much money is enough to buy a public servant?
And if I may play devil’s advocate as well, how high do you think we should go? By your implied argument, why don’t we empty out all our reserves for the civil servants? They deserve as much as they can for committing to public service, right?
about 5 years ago
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for the reply.
To answer your question on how high: actually I think the current Gahmen ministers are all very well paid already. My own position is that there’s no need to increase. $1 million a year more than enough.
BTW, to continue playing the Devil’s Advocate:
You haven’t addressed my question of whether salaries should be kept low for doctors, nurses, firemen and policemen. All of these are jobs with a public service component too. I don’t think Singapore’s reserves should be emptied out for them (contrary to the “straw man” argument you’ve attributed to myself).
But how much financial penalty do you want to hit a nurse or a doctor with for taking a public service job?
about 5 years ago
As always, we are reminded of how wonderful our bunch of leaders are and how they deserve the best salaries in the world. So money has become a factor in the determination of a minister’s capabilities. Most bosses will hold any pay rises unless it is necessary to retain or reward those who really contribute to the profits of the company. By contributions, I am referring to the employees’ ideas to increase productivity and profits. Most of these ministers are followers of the leader (yes men), windows dressers (media co*k talkers), planners (of leaders’ ideas), workload allocators (more work to the peasants), budget planners (less money for the peasants), red tape creators (less trouble for gov), baby kissers, and many other nonsense stuff.
The senior leader KNOWS that the new generation office holders are NOT motivated to serve but to be employed. Money always change the weaker hearts. Some have realised that money do smell good, and “screwed whatever principles”. Maybe the leaders realised that some ministers are living beyond their means (remember one minister buying too many properties) and are using this proposed increase to help them along. Mortgage payments can be quite stiff…
about 5 years ago
Aaron:
Some figures concerning ministers’ pay that I got off the blogosphere…
Note that most of these are from 5 yrs ago, but I am not sure if they have changed, or have stayed static. To my surprise, I recall seeing one recent MSM article using similar figures for current ministerial salaries, so maybe they have stayed static, or it may just be sloppy reporting.
Singapore President’s Basic Salary US$1,500,000 (SGD$2,507,200)
Singapore Prime Minister’s Basic Salary US$1,100,000 (SGD1,958,000)
Minister’s Basic: US$655,530 to US$819,124 (SGD1,166,844 to SGD1,458,040) a year
Average Singaporean: US$26,000 (SGD43,104 or SGD3,592 per mo) Source: Singapore Ministry of Manpower
PM Lee
Salary as Prime Minister $2million yearly
Salary as Finance Minister $1.2million yearly
Variable Bonus: 6months salary minimum yearly
Full Medical Benefits – Private Specialist Consultant on regular standby – Yearly cost to tax payers $200,000
Security cost: Approximately $1.5million yearly
First class travel and stays at top hotels when he travels on business trips
United States of America
President: Increased to US$400,000 on Jan. 20, 2001, with US$50,000 expenses
Vice President: US$202,900
Cabinet Secretaries: US$157,000
United Kingdom
Prime Minister: US$170,556
Ministers: US$146,299
Australia
Prime Minister: US$137,060
Deputy Prime Minister: US$111,439
Treasurer: US$102,682
Source: Asian Wall Street Journal July 10 2000.
Singapore President’s salary which was updated in 2005 from the Singapore Straits Times.
about 5 years ago
Money isn’t really the central issue. I personally don’t even mind if a minister gets paid over and above the market rate in the private sector.
The issue has everything to do with value – or rather the perception of value.
Are we getting value for money?
This naturally turns on the question of how innovative and creative the government is at generating value for the population.
Creativity and innovation doesnt necessarily mean supporting high tech research. It could be something very mundane and ordinary like freeing up more commercial space to lower the cost of starting small businesses in Singapore – improving the supply chain management in hospitals to lower down the cost of healthcare – providing rebated travel rates during off peak hours – opening avenues for alternative sources of energy other than relying 100% on fossil fuels by cutting down on bureaucratic red tape – or even something as basic as freeing up more study space in the national library in Bugis etc.
This of course means someone has to get off their backsides and really start to do some real work to generate “value” for the rest of us.
about 5 years ago
Glad to see that you are doing one on the topic.
In countries where the pays of politicians are not benchmarked against some highly-paid members from the private sector, they can have power and live comfortable enough lives. In Singapore, the top politicians can have both power and quite a lot more money it seems. It is a rather interesting contrast to the non-Singaporean case where money does not come so surely together with power.
Well, we may suspect that in other countries politicians get ‘donations’ from lobby groups, i.e. money just comes later, but how much could that be compared to Singapore’s case?
Are these foreign politicians really more corruptible? Are they serving 3 masters: the state, their patrons and themselves, compared to just 2 for Singaporean politicians? Could anyone give some statistics?
How much more should you pay for someone’s incorruptibility? Is it a case of diminishing returns? Beyond a certain amount, it may make little difference.
How much would you pay for talents otherwise sought by the private sector? Is it the case that the same talents are required to run the country? Is that why this is called Singapore Inc.?
How does the willingness to serve figure in the pay scale? Does it qualify its carriers for more salary, while those non-carriers get less?
Enough rumination, where have all these pertinent question gone in the justification for higher ministerial salaries? Are the answers irrelevant or is the general population not erudite enough to grasp them even when told?
about 5 years ago
Well Devil’s Advocate,
I think that 2/3 to 3/4 of the average private sector income is a pretty much acceptable figure to me. I think that it is natural that public service jobs will always pay less because of the need to make the service more affordable to the general public. The question is how much lower, but there is never a fixed answer. As long as it falls into a band where the public is comfortable with, and the band does not unfairly remunerate the investment in time and money that the professional has made to achieve his skills, its reasonable.
about 5 years ago
Well Layman,
I would say that people are still motivated to serve, but the expectation of remuneration has gone higher. I do hope that people see public office as a service, and they can serve out a few terms of office doing something for the good of society before returning back to the private sector to earn big bucks.
about 5 years ago
Well darkness,
I suppose you have a point. It’s worthwhile to pay more for better quality. Unfortunately, it is not possible for ministerial pay to be subject to market forces. As it stands now, the ministers decide their own pay, which obviously will lead to people wondering if there will be a conflict of interest. I have no solution to this problem, but it would be interesting if a survey can be done to see what the population thinks about what is a fair amount to pay a minister.
about 5 years ago
Aaron,
I think I did try to post a comment on ministerial salaries but I think it got eaten up by your spam filter, given the lots of $$$ figures in the content which makes it look like spam hehe
Just to let you know.
about 5 years ago
Hi YCK,
It’s just something that struck me when I was reading some blogs online.
I think our ministers are being paid quite well, and I’m not sure if increasing pay is the way to go. If the economy is indeed doing well, I think that giving a bigger bonus is a better idea than wage increase. Wage increase should be given if, in the words of darkness, the “value” of the minister has increased.
Of course, how to decide whether the value of our leaders have increased is another matter altogether.
about 5 years ago
Hi Jolly Jester,
Indeed the spam filter ate up your post. I’ve taken it out already.
about 5 years ago
Ah, the vaule for money.
The question is who set the value of these office holders. The senior leaders or the common people. If we set the standards for them, they will be quite high, being the way we are. So, the value is determined by the senior leaders. With all the high salaries, we expect exceptionally talented people but then exceptionally talented people would not want to be in the government. High salaries create the perception of highly talented persons are working for the good of the country, as compared to the really talented people in te private sector, except that “shareholders” in this case cannot fired the directors of Singapore Inc. What we want to see “real talent”, most will not care about the salaries given out if they really have “real talent”.
So, are we getting the value for money for “the talent being displayed by the ministers”? If you want a pay rise, perform well first. Like respect, it is not given, it is earned.
about 5 years ago
Hi Aaron,
I get exhausted just thinking of the obscene amount of money that ministers get.
The whole crap about how much these people sacrifice to be in the Cabinet is also a whole lot of BS.
If you believe this BS, then all private surgeons would be multi-millionaires as those doctors in the Cabinet supposedly took a hefty pay cut to join the poliburo. Really hilarious
Dr.Huang
about 5 years ago
Dr Huang, you joking or not?
I thought Ng Eng Hen, Vivian and Baladji are all top notch millionaires already, who needed to be tempted by $$ to serve Singapore? Was that a lie??
about 5 years ago
Hi Dr Huang,
I’m not in a position to put a value on how much money our ministers should be paid, but I do know that it’s very high already (as evident from Jolly Jester’s figures above) and to increase it further is really unwarranted.
I mean, the cabinet ministers do work hard, but is it worth more than a million dollars a year? In fact, I would like to know if all cabinet ministers actually can earn that amount of money in the private sector after leaving office? My gut feel is that most of them are probably not going to earn that kind of money, unless they are in some specialised profession.
about 5 years ago
If tomorrow, the ministers salary be suddenly reduced to $1 p.m., do you think they’ll give up their office or lofty calling and be any lesser in their jobs?
I doubt so. I do not see MM/SM relinguishing the seductive powers and excitment of politics(a disputable reward in itself). In fact, I wager that he may even donate a portion of his wealth to charity, if need be, to stay in power..=P
The stratospheric salary is more useful for suing their political opponents to bankrutcy than providing a quality of living, which most of these able politicians already enjoyed before entering politics.
Money(ridiculous amount) thus is a neccessary power for the weak and insecure.
about 5 years ago
Money or no money…if it is a true calling in one’s life…the person will answer the call no matter what!
For these people, money is never an issue and too much of it, actually becomes an embaressment and an insult to their high calling!
It is these with the true callling that are greatly needed in politics( not beholden to money will give an entirely different twist to the current political scene) – not those who won’t be corrupted only because their thirst for money has been justifiably satisfied.
about 5 years ago
Sorry that I’ve come to the discussion a bit late. I’ve written an article on how we might all be missing the point if we narrow the debate into “how much to pay?”.
Maybe there are other non-financial incentives which might encourage recruitment or retention of talent in the public service? e.g. better childcare access for civil servants, more family-friendly work-from-home options, etc?
The article (if you don’t mind me plugging it here) can be found on my blog as:
Public Service Salaries: Expanding the Discussion?
about 5 years ago
Hi
It appeared I stirred some sh#t (again).
It seems my reputation as a sh#t stirrer is well-earned.
Just try this at your next dinner when you happen to sit next to any successful ( and famous) doctor in private practice,” BTW doc, is it really a step down for any doctor to enter the cabinet, even at the Minister of State level” ?
You guys of course already know how much a MOS earn right? 50-60K before bonus issit?
Don’t even mention the full Cab Minister’s pay.
Go figure that out.
Dr.Huang
about 5 years ago
about 5 years ago
Nice article.
Two words come to mind when talking about the obscenely high salaries of our ministers: legitimised corruption.
about 5 years ago
Singapore is a woman above 40, having a PAP smear is logical and necessary!
about 5 years ago
I heard from other site that someone label the kind of corruption in Singapore as LEEruption. Sound like a good name. Law and policy that seem legal but no difference from corruption. Legal system that can be changed easily by the Lees to suit their needs and security.
about 5 years ago
In fact, if you pay miserably and still someone is willing to step up there and serve, this is a person that the country can depend on.
That someone must be corrupted or involved in corruption.
about 5 years ago
Anonymous Coward, that’s a very half glass empty and cynical perspective, isn’t it?
about 5 years ago
Doctors, nurses and firefighters are paid higher because of certain undesirable traits of the job that requires monetary compensation.
about 5 years ago
I believe we need to pay our ministers well, so the key issue is how we define “well”.
Our current method of determining ministerial pay (i.e. benchmarked as two third of top private sector earners) has serious flaws that skew the pay upwards. For example, the method contains survivorship bias. A person that is a top private sector earner this year might be out of a job the next (or even for the following few years). Our ministers are not subjected to such vagarities of the private sector. Another example is that a person might be a top earner this year, but not the next.
A better method is to benchmark a particular cohort of top earners and stick to this group over time. Also, real GDP growth and population median salary should also be key determinants of ministerial pay.
Additionally, poor performing ministers should be asked to stepped down. This is something that is not happening in S’pore. It is logical to expect non-performers to be sacked when they don’t make the grade….afterall we are paying top dollar.
about 5 years ago
I refer to the devil’s advocate argument about doctors, teachers et al who should be paid less if we were to argue that Ministers should be paid less due to the “public service” nature of work.
There is one very important difference. Doctors and teachers etc employed in the private sector, are paid what the market rate determines and is able to support.
They CANNOT raise their pay abitrarily.
Unlike Ministers who determine the amounts AND sign their own cheques.
Doctors, teachers, firemen are accountable for their pay. Tell me honestly, with the situation in Singapore currently, are Ministers accountable?
We can write a million blog pages and discuss it back and forth a billion times. But the conclusion is already foregone…. ministers’ salaries will be raised.
Just food for thought, I think it is common knowledge that Ministers and MPs who have ?served at least two terms get a LIFE-TIME PENSION. I wonder how many MILLION-DOLLAR ex-ministers we have and how many ex-MPs we have. I don’t have the figures for the annual pension expenditure, but I think it should be mind-boggling.
So while we are arguing about increase in pay for ministers, please note that the x% increase will be for the rest of LIFE-TIME of our current ministers. Since it will also translate into x% increase in pension.
about 5 years ago
I am a neutral party in the debate of this topic of ‘Pay rise for civil servant’ and would like to share some of my thoughts.
I personally too agree that there should be someway to demarcate a resonable pay packet for civil servant but what how should we define a ‘Reasonable’ pay and who should have a say to it. Is it the President or Prime minister or the government body itself or the members of public?
If we leave the decision to the government then the members of public would say that they have no say in it. If we leave it to the members of public to decide then would most of them suggest to bring down the civil servant’s pay to the minimum possible. Thereafter they would be able to pay less for taxes or the difference can then be channel to other areas e.g helping the lower income earners.
Now lets shine some light on the private sectors. If we were to allow consumers to decide on the pay for the service providers’ workers, which do not affect themselves then I believe most of them would also want the pay of the service providers’ workers to be brought down to the minumum possible. This in turn would lower the cost for the manufacturing of products or the cost of service. Needless to say, the consumers could then save more on their expenditure.
There is no right or wrong to both kinds of thinking. It only how to look at one similar problem. In fact, everybody would most probably put themselves as a top priority over others.
But should we look outside the box and at the bigger picture as to what could happen or what would have been the difference if the present hae been changed. Would it be better or worse?
Maybe somebody can shed some light on this matter.
about 4 years ago
I refer to Lionel’s post on priority ‘thinking’ on the parties involved.
As the term ‘civil servant’ implies, the government is here to serve the people. That is, all Singaporeans are the bosses of the government.
In this respect, the government should consult the people on any pay increment, and not suka suka.
about 4 years ago
Hello, any way that I can email your articles to friends and associates by clicking on a “Email Page” link or button without using my email program like Outlook?
about 4 years ago
Hi Doggy,
After reading your request, I went to do some research and found it to be possible to do so. You may now make use of the Email This Post function above the title.
Thanks for the request, else I wouldn’t have really gone to find out if it’s possible.
about 2 weeks ago
We so appreciate your site post. There are a multitude of ways we could put it to good use with the help of a minimum of effort in time and financial resources. Thank you really with regard to helping make this post give light to many issues we have come across before now.
about 2 weeks ago
I couldn’t have asked for an even better blog. You happen to be always available to give excellent advice, going directly to the point for quick understanding of your visitors. You’re truly a terrific expert in this subject matter. Thanks a ton for remaining there for humans like me.
about 3 days ago
Could not thank you adequately for the blogposts on your website. I know you add a lot of time and effort into these and really hope you know how much I enjoy it. I hope I could do the identical thing for someone else one of these days.