To me, his point was clearly about price vs quality aka 一分钱，一分货, but many distorted it and instead argued that it was about:
(i) Affordability, i.e. 'we poor people cannot afford $10 Chye Tau Kueh'; or
(ii) 'Cheap and good' Chye Tau Kueh and ministers do exist; or simply
(iii) Kee Chiu Chan is elitist.
Affordable Ministers
Affordability is an invalid argument here, because Singapore, as a country, can definitely afford to pay our ministers multi-million dollar salaries.
(Come on, we freaking built the expensive Gardens by the Bay at S$1.4 BILLION and counting... This figure does not include the cost of the 100ha of reclaimed land it sits on, ok?!)
Many people have mistaken their own tight financial situation for the nation's financial health. As a nation, we definitely can pay our leaders high, or even higher, salaries.
Also, it's not as if Singaporeans will be paying less taxes after the 1/3 ministerial pay cuts. Neither would the pay cuts be redistributed to all Singaporeans. See my point? Nothing to do with whether Singapore can 'afford' to pay high salaries.
As for those of us who believe there are enough capable people out there, who will:
(a) wholeheartedly take up a minister's job,
(b) at a starting pay of under S$1mil, and
(c) put up with the crazy scrutiny and criticism from everyone and anyone,
I think such thoughts are a clear sign of delusion.
Just because you can find 1 'Cheap and Good' candidate, doesn't mean you can find enough of them to fill the Cabinet, and for the years to come.
Before you go all ballistic about the spirit of public service and how that means one should not be drawing high salaries, please be reminded that while not getting paid for her relentless and selfless efforts, Mother Teresa didn't have to publicly account for her causes or work. She didn't have to explain why she had chosen to feed/ tend to these mouths and not help them in other ways or at all. Nor did she have to justify her choice of beneficiaries, e.g. which nationalities, race, illness types, etc. She just did the work she thought was necessary, and chose to invest herself in it.
Net Result of Succumbing to Demands for Ministerial Pay Cut
I believe that paying our minister less, while expecting more, is a slippery down slope slide.
The new pay, as it stands now, together with this new wave of extreme criticism and scrutiny by the public, will end up attracting the following:
(1) Not-the-best people from the private sector
Pay is not the best indicator of talent, but let's see who earns more than our ministers anyway.
Hmmm... Let's see... Oh wow... Former CEO MRT, Saw, made more than the revised minsters' pay. She made S$1.4million (before share options). So if she's willing to take a 30% pay cut to serve as a Minister, does it mean Singapore has found itself a great leader with 'sense of duty and self-sacrifice'?
How many great talents from the private sector are willing to forgo their top jobs, where they would probably only need to answer to a 10-member board, and trade that for a job which subjects them (along with their family) to extreme public scrutiny and criticism by 3.x million people? What will happen after they have been voted out of this job? Can they return to their careers in the private sector?
(2) Second-tier top civil servants and uniformed officers (coz their retirement age is earlier than norm)
I'm referring to 'second tier' from the very top, i.e. those who are unlikely to make it to the top civil servant positions such as Permanent Secretary.
Maturing as Thinking Followers
I know this point is merely me being naive, but I'll say it anyway.
Even if we somehow are able to find enough people with fiery passion and right heart to fill the Cabinet, the incessant demands from the public will get louder, and eventually simply distract our leaders from focusing on their core functions (which are not clear to begin with). They will end up having to constantly manage these incessant voices.
This is not to say everyone ought to shut up. But it is also time for us to learn about maturity as followers. We probably need a 'Sane and Thinking Citizens campaign', but not under that name coz people's egos will be wounded.
It's great that more Singaporeans are interested in politics these days, but such interests should not be left unguided, unchecked and unharnessed. It's an entire craft altogether to manage public's opinion and feedback.
If not, we may slide into a situation where it's just bickering and mud-slinging all the time, while little time and effort can be devoted to getting the work done. And eventually, politicians will keep coming and going like a revolving door.
Just take a look at Japan. 7 prime ministers in the last 10 years, with 1 change per year in the last 7 years. Each change of PM bringing along a Cabinet reshuffle. How much time and effort are really spent on getting work done?
Don't say silly things like "Oh... That's just Japan. We will not be like that."
Who's gonna stop something like that from happening?
You, me, or the incessantly noisy public?
It's very easy to be destructive, but it's very difficult to be constructive.
阿公 ain't gonna be around to slap people for misbehaving anymore.
Wanna imagine a situation where we will end up slapping one another as we fancy?
Talk, no matter how pretty the words are, is so cheap.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar