Ministers' Pay Hike; What's the political price tag?

Insight, The Straights Times.
Saturday, April 14 2007

Summary
This article is essentially a kind of a study into the impact the ministers' pay hike had onto both ministers and public opinion.

The government justifies its unpopular policy by claiming that it needs to spend its "political capital" in order to maintain a fresh flow of leaders for the future.

However, the general public opinion is of otherwise. Among the responses were that "the move [was] a bit self-serving and the timing is very insensitive." In addition, the 2nd paragraph mentioned that the government refused to raise the public assistance allowance for its poorest citizens by more than $30 a month, but instead had the heart to increase its minsiter's pay checks to $1.6 million.

The article also featured a counter argument to the public's opinion of the PM's decision to donate his pay increases over the next five years as "a retreat in the face of negative reaction." The argument being that the PM made his decision well before the public debate, hence it cannot be intepreted as a retreat.

My response to this issue...

(I was feeling a little disgusted reading this article. Typical government directed material through the straits times. It's like back to the social studies textbook again.)

Anyway,
My stand on this issue leans more towards the public opinion, although I do acknowledge the government's justification that the pay hike was crucial in maintaining the quality of leadership for our country's future.

I feel that the government could have seeked other ways to ensure that misterial and civil service posts remain attractive.

I can't agree more to the view that the timing of the move was very insensitive. People's lives are getting better due to the better living standards. And this just means forking out more money for consumer goods. Which undeniably means the poor get poorer, while the already rich ministers, get richer. I just wonder why they need to spend another 3 million dollars to the minister mentor. Doesn't he have so much money already? I think that its just sufficient to have a senior minister. LKY is PM Lee's dad for goodness's sake. If he needs advice, he can turn to him free of charge like any other father-son relationship. And if he has an feedback or suggestions he can simply relay it to his son right? This something that is a little hard to understand. It just gives me the idea that the MM's after money. Who doesn't want three million dollars a year just for being a "mentor"?

Perhaps the government is having a problem in searching for prospective candidates who are truly sincere in serving the nation, suggesting why it needs to pump in more of OUR money into making serving the nation more attractive in terms of monetary gains, rather than the feeling of satisfaction, for example, of having served the people. What's the purpose of having civics and moral education then?

I agree with a quote from Hong Kah GRC MP Zaqy Mohamad. Here is what it says:

"Many young idealists would still like to see leaders roll up their sleaves and be there with the people, like what Mr Lee Kuan Yew used to do. Now, we see leaders in their slick Mercedes and the feeling is just different."

I do not know what LKY used to do, but i kind of get the idea that if the government cannot get the rich to suffer with the poor as in communism, at least they should show some consideration and respect for the poor by not openly robbing them of their money, or so it seems.

Well this is really a huge topic to debate on. Let's just see what happens next shall we? The government probably will remain adamant about its decision, so will the general public, unless the govt somehow manages to roll out some sort of brainwashing formula to win over the people's opinions.