Apr 2, 2011
Pricing honesty misses larger concerns
THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).
Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.
Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?
Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?
Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.
Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.
The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.
Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.
Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.
This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.
It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.
The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.
Tim Mou Hui
Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly
AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.
My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.
We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.
Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.
# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.
# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.
When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.
# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.
Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.
Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.
# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.
Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado
[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.
Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."
What do I mean?
If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.
What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.
For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.
If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.
Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.
So look at the world.
There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.
There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.
In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.
The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.
Pricing honesty misses larger concerns
THE reasons cited by Mr Kanagasabai Haridas to support ministerial salaries miss the larger concerns of many Singaporeans ('Singapore has priced honesty correctly'; last Saturday).
Mr Haridas states that financial incentives are necessary to entice leaders because we are a young country.
Singapore will always be young compared to others with a long history. Does that mean financial incentives will always be necessary?
Even if we view youth as an absolute value, at what age can we wean ourselves off financial incentives?
Just as we would not teach our children that wealth is all that matters, we should not entrench the pursuit of financial incentives in political office.
Second, Mr Haridas argues that the extended political life of a minister in Singapore makes it necessary to pay honest ones sufficiently.
The thinking that ministers must be rewarded handsomely if we want them to serve honestly is not the way a government should operate. The political lifespan of a minister should instead depend on the people's mandate via free elections.
Third, Mr Haridas suggests that only those who have already made their fortune can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Such a view perverts a minister's responsibility to dedicate himself to the betterment of the lives of the people, and not seek office for monetary gain.
Finally, Mr Haridas notes that ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit after their political career.
This statement assumes that the ultimate reward for serving the people is wealth. It ignores the satisfaction gained from knowing that the people have been served well, and that the country has been steered in the right direction.
It also ignores the respect the people have for a minister who has selflessly served them.
The first priority for ministers anywhere is to serve the people and the country.
Tim Mou Hui
Mar 26, 2011
Singapore has priced honesty correctly
AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.
My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.
We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.
Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.
# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.
# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.
When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.
# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.
Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.
Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.
# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.
Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado
[These are two civil, mostly thoughtful letters with valid if incorrect concerns.
Let's get the usual quotes and corollaries out of the way: Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Power attracts the corruptible. And my own thoughts: "The real power tends to ensure that the nominal power positions are taken by those they can influence and corrupt to their own advantage."
What do I mean?
If you are making $5m a year as a CEO or a professional (lawyer, doctor, banker) all you really want is to be left alone to continue to make your money not simply for yourself, but to ensure that your family is well provided for.
What you want is a stable environment to work and raise your family. You want this to cost you as little as possible.
And you want to be left alone to do your work.
For this to happen there is a need for stable government. Maybe even good government.
If ministers salaries are say $100,000 a year, you can expect that very few professionals at the top of their career will want to make the sacrifice. Why should they? They would rather find someone they can influence, and finance their political campaign so they they "own" them and can influence if not control them when they are in power.
Or if they do take up the political leadership, it is so that they can directly plunder the resources of the country, or use their power to corruptly fleece the citizenry.
So look at the world.
There are some countries where the corrupt are in power, because that's the best way to control the natural resources of the country and channel revenues into their own pockets. Gaddafi in Libya is one.
There are other countries where businesses finance politicians in order to ensure that their politicians get into power and can be pro-business. The Republicans in the USA are basically that. Look up John Boehner and his connection to businesses.
In either cases, the actual salary from their political position can be very modest. But their lifestyle shows that they have alternative, possibly undisclosed income.
The US President's salary is like $400,000. But to get elected, they are willing to spend HALF A BILLION for their campaign. EACH! Why? To do volunteer service? Give back to the country? It takes a multi-millionaire to run for president or at least someone with serious backing from rich people or corporations. Hilary Clinton spend millions of her own money to try to get the Democratic Party's nomination for presidential candidate.
(Afternote: For our Presidential Elections, for the over 2 million voters, the candidates spent a total of just over $1.3m, or about 65 cents per vote. )
So which is the corruption in Singapore. Are the leaders accumulating wealth from our natural resources? We are blessed with no natural resources. Have they been bought by the rich and wealthy? If they have there will be signs.
In the US, the rich corporations get lots of tax loopholes. Are there any here?
In M'sia and other corrupt govts, the usual suspects get all the govt contracts often by closed tender or direct awarding of the tender. Is this done here?
The answer is no. Singapore is clean by independent assessment. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index lists Singapore, Denmark and New Zealand as the 3 countries with the highest rating (i.e. least corrupt) of 9.3.
So it is not about young or old country. It is about clean govt, properly priced.]
Update Jul 2013: Latest CPI:
http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2012/results/
Singapore ranked 5, with score of 87.
No comments:
Post a Comment