National Solidarity Party

In the last election, Singaporeans have demonstrated a keen desire for a more balanced political landscape, a wider range of views and more robust debates in Parliament.

One important ingredient however remains missing for us to achieve the level of scrutiny and debate desired by Singaporeans – the Freedom of Information Act.

It is necessary for opposition parties to have equal access to all information pertinent to the formulation of public policies and laws, unless there are overriding reasons for withholding information, for example where national security may be threatened. Armed with accurate information, different political parties would then be better equipped to scrutinise each other and hold each other to higher standards. This will ultimately benefit Singaporeans.

The PAP chided WP for not submitting their proposal to the Review Committee on Ministerial Salaries, seeking to further tilt the unequal balance of information in their favour. If WP is obliged to open their books, but there is no obligation on the part of the Government to provide WP with relevant information they require, no robust debate will ever be possible in Parliament. If withholding proposals from the Review Committee is considered a political manoeuvre, then the denial of a Freedom of Information Act is a political manoeuvre on a much grander scale.

Singapore has made some headway in getting a more diverse representation into Parliament. However, without equal access to information, debates in Parliament will be stifled. Accurate and accessible information is crucial to developing a Parliament with thought-provoking debates.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General

On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

The National Solidarity Party finds the report disappointing on both the choice of benchmark and salary levels:

1. Benchmark

   The committee has recommended that Ministerial salaries be benchmarked against the median income of the top 1000 Singaporean earners, which means the average income of the top 500^th and 501^st earners.

   Assuming a labour force of between 1.5 to 2 million ^[1], this means the benchmark is the income of an earner in the top 0.03 percentile.

   It is disappointing that our Ministers’ salaries are still pegged to income levels of the top earners instead of the general wage level. It sends the message that our Ministers are in the same boat as the top earners and not with the average person. It rewards the Ministers more as income inequality increases and top earners get a larger and larger share of the economic pie.

   The general wage level affects only about 7.5% ^[2] of the annual pay package. In essence, the new benchmark is not very much different from the old benchmark.

   The committee dismissed the use of median wages as a benchmark on the basis that the multiplier is arbitrary. And yet the 40% discount is similarly arbitrary. Why not a 50% discount or any other figure?

   We must accept that in all human decisions there will be degrees of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness however is not licence for whimsy but rather must be supported by sound and defensible judgement.

2. Quantum

   Even with a 40% discount, the salary level of an entry level Minister at $1.1m is still very much higher than those of heads of states or governments in other developed countries. The basic premise still seems to be that high salaries are needed to attract talented individuals into politics.

   The Prime Minister had promised that the message from the last elections had been received and that the PAP would change its outlook. One of the first issues he had identified as requiring urgent review was that of Ministerial Salaries. While the review has produced a steeper discount, there has been no change in the philosophy of the wage structure. The Chinese saying – huan tang bu huan yao – which translates as “changed the soup but not the medicine”, comes to mind.

   We fear the Government has missed a big opportunity to show that it is of the people and for the people.

Effectiveness of high salaries

In 1994, the Government introduced the proposal to peg Ministerial salaries to top earners in the private sector for two purposes: (i) to attract talent from the private sector, and (ii) to prevent corruption.

This policy has been in place for 17 years now, and we have not been more successful in attracting private sector talents into politics. On the other hand, corruption is illegal just like robbery or theft. Just as we do not pay people not to rob or steal, it is ridiculous to pay people not to be corrupt. In any case, as the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius once observed, “a man should be upright, not be kept upright.”

We therefore need to look at the rewards for politicians more holistically, considering both monetary and non-monetary rewards.

The edge that the public service used to have was the widespread respect and trust from the people as a result of the personal and financial sacrifices required in taking up such appointments. With the rapid increase in ministerial salaries to levels far above international norms, that trust and respect has been eroded by the sense that PAP politicians no longer share the destiny of those whom they govern. We need to restore the ethos of public service in younger Singaporeans in order to attract the right kind of people, rather than to compete on financial terms.

The NSP strongly feels that our politicians’ salary structure should demonstrate the following:

• Fairness and solidarity with the people by using the median wage as the benchmark, with a multiplier set in comparison with international salary levels for politicians such that our Ministerial salaries are no more than twice the international standard;
   
• Greater transparency through the declaration of incomes, assets and directorships; and
   
• Empowerment of the voters by having a variable component tied to national vote share won by the party at the next general election. The vote share is the ultimate composite KPI, encompassing all issues that Singaporeans care about.
   

Attracting the right people into politics

Finally, to make politics attractive, our political culture has to change.

By their own admission the PAP has had trouble recruiting talented individuals. This we believe is due to popular perception that it is a party of group-thinkers and yes-men. On the other hand, people who have publicly disagreed with the government have been dealt with harshly. When our young people see opposition politicians being sued, jailed, or bankrupted, and they have no interest in becoming yes-men, is it any wonder few are interested in politics?

The stigma that surrounds politics in this country is detrimental to the long-term health of our Republic. We must abolish or review legislations like the ISA, the Public Order Act and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act – all of which have the effect of censorship and stifling the development of democratic habits essential for attracting good and talented people into politics and government.

Our Government had chosen not to address the issue holistically, opting instead for the simplistic approach of increasing salaries, which unsurprisingly has proven ineffective. It is time they realise that it is not all about the money.

Hazel Poa
Secretary-General
On behalf of the Central Executive Committee

Footnotes

1. ^: Labour Force Report 2010 stated a resident labour force of 2.05 million, which included both Singapore Citizens and PRs. There are 541,000 PRs in Singapore in 2010, according to the Department of Statistics.

2. ^: Two factors out of four affecting National Bonus which is about three months out of 20 months.