The hottest news in the past few days has to be the ministerial pay revision. I had personally expected a cut between 10% ~ 25% which means that the cuts proposed are above my expectations. If anyone were to ask whether I am pleased or happy, it would be the wrong question to ask. I will only talk about what I think about it.

First of all, the ministers will still be the highest paid in the world compared to their foreign peers based on the figures alone. The fanatically and rabidly anti-People’s Action Party [anti-PAP] netizens were quick to point out that PM Lee still earns S$2.2 million (approximately US$1.7 million at current exchange rate) compared to President Obama’s US$400,000.

That said, when President Obama and his family went on vacation to Hawaii recently, it cost the US taxpayers almost US$4 million dollars. So while Obama nominally earns less, he certainly has a lot more perks. I wondered whether the government paid for Prime Minister Lee’s recent vacation (which was cut short as a result of the MRT breakdowns) or did he pay for it out of his own pocket. If our country only paid for the expenses of the PM’s security detail while he paid for the rest of his own expenses from his salary, then how is the comparison with President Obama’s salary fair? Wouldn’t our political leaders actually not be getting much more than the other leaders because the perks are not considered a part of their salaries?

Many would be outraged with what I have just written. I imagined there would be screams of anger and outrage at my words and I shivered. Regardless, I simply had to voice this out because I am ignorant about the matter itself! I want to be absolutely sure when I still lash out at them over the matter of their exorbitant pay, no one could try and argue their way out of it.

Next, the Ministerial Pay Review Committee has almost wiped out the pay increments of 2007 because I estimated that ministerial pay is now almost back to pre-2007 levels. I had originally wanted to show figures but I am confident with my estimations. Here’s the math – If I earn $2000 in 2007 and I get a pay increment of 60%, my new pay would be $3200. And if I get a pay cut of 35% at 2011, my new pay would be $2080. That’s not much of a change from what I was getting before the increment and I have to say it’s quite a substantial cut. (It doesn’t matter whether that pay is $2000 or $1.5 million. The results will give the same conclusions.)

On top of that they are doing away with the pension scheme and from May 21, 2011 onwards, the previous pension scheme is abolished. Even the method of calculating their bonus has been changed. Given that the method would not be tied solely to the economic performance, I wouldn’t really comment on it until they announce their bonus based on this new scheme. What exactly is the point of speculating on how they will make use of this variable to pay themselves handsomely when they haven’t already done it? While it is too late by then… I prefer to stick with what has been done or already occurred.

So that pretty much summarises what I think of the committee’s proposal. I have glanced through some of the political parties’ reaction but I have yet to see the one from the Workers’ Party [WP]. It reminds me why I have liked WP since 2006. This is a party that doesn’t jump the gun and shoot from the hip. They tend to think it over and say the things that makes the most sense. WP appears to be the only party which seems to understand that it is the swing voters and not the rabidly anti-PAP that needs convincing. Consider this, a lot of PAP mistakes aren’t apparent until many years after the decisions are made – from the 2-child policy to opening the floodgates to foreigners. But can anyone actually expect the sentiments in 2016 to be the same as 8 months ago? When a political party is always saying the same things as those who have completely rejected the PAP and disregard whatever the PAP is saying / doing, fat hope in winning a seat in Parliament! They are simply gambling that the PAP will continue to falter and not do anything. Granted, the PAP has become arrogant, elitist and even out of touch. But from 75.2% in 2001 to 60.1% in 2011, does anyone really think the PAP hasn’t felt the danger of losing power already?

Anyway, on the matter of arrogance and elitism (as a result of Grace Fu’s so-called misunderstood comments), I had a discussion with some friends on Whatsapp and one of my friends said this (I paraphrase):

” No one disagrees in paying the ministers an appropriate wage to do the job. The question is, how much is appropriate pay? “

We subsequently agreed that appropriate pay is simply a sum of money which leaves enough to save up for old age (so we have money when we can’t work as hard and earn as much), and also to cover our liabilities (housing loans for e.g.) and expenses (food & utilities etc). Based on that, if Grace Fu still expect the people to believe that even S$1 million is not an appropriate pay, and that it will not be enough to attract talents, then she ought to tell us why. Justifying that they can earn more working elsewhere isn’t going to work for us when we are really earning peanuts and are constantly told to curb our expectation for better wages. In fact, another friend had pointed out that he doubt any of those former navy Rear Admirals or army Generals had commanded a higher pay before becoming a minister. Though certain Permanent Secretaries might actually earn more than the minister himself which makes it hard for the PAP to bring them into politics, that in itself still cannot justify that a minister would earn more outside the government. After all, the PAP has so far very little to show in terms of talents from the private sector.

So, what exactly is the point I am trying to make here then while I seem to conditionally accept the pay they are getting, and yet say their justification of that pay to attract talents is bollocks? The point is that I choose the middle ground – i.e. while I won’t accept the PAP’s argument for the pay level, I also do not think the cuts are too little. I also want to point out that there are those who really don’t want to get involve in this argument but simply expect the ministers to get the job done and deal with those matters which most of us considered to be problems. In particular, those of housing, transport, the influx of foreigners, the widening incoming gap, the rise of elitism, health care costs etc. Most of us simply don’t want to listen to bullshit like “once in 50 years occurrences”, or “stealing from the reserves”.

On top of which, I must say that appearing to be doing something is also not enough. One of my ex-supervisors once said this: “You can be doing a lot of things related to an issue and is even very efficient in doing them, but are all those things you do… effective?” I believe everyone knows what (or who) I am driving at and I do not need to draw the innards in stick figures.

Simply put, pay revision (or reduction) is simply cosmetic. What Singaporeans really want is effective measures and not quick fixes (such as raising the ground level at the Orchard / Patterson Road Junction in reaction to the flash floods) which are not entirely effective. Perhaps having the ministers take responsibility for screw ups would be too much to ask for, but at the very least we expect accountability. In Ling How Doong’s words – Don’t Talk Cock, especially when everyone is already pointing out what the problem is.

Before I end, I would like to share a joke. “Now that the annual salary of the Minister of Transportation is lower than Saw Phiak Hwa’s, it may pose some problems when he discuss policies with her as she earn millions of dollars because she need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals. Perhaps he would need to tell her to go to maintain a bit of dignity.”

Oh, I know the person who said something similarly stupid has apologised for it. But he doesn’t need to be upset over this. After all, he can still retain his dignity when he compares his pay with mine.