In his two-hour speech in parliament defending the proposed ministerial salary hike, Singapore prime minister Lee Hsien Loong justified the move by saying that “I’m worried about somebody wanting to be Prime Minister, hoping to be paid not a single cent but still collect $400 million — under the table…”
This is a flawed argument. First, it is precisely to prevent a rogue prime minister from taking office that we need to have checks and balances in the government. Right now this is non-existent, which explains why Lee Hsien Loong can get away with whatever he proposes.
Secondly, using the example cited by Lee, what is the difference if the said prime minister is paid S$400 million legally but collects nothing under the table? And even if the said prime minister is paid S$400 million, is there any guarantee that this will stop him from attempting to collect more under the table? Greed has no limit, you know.
In my last post, I forgot to document this statement by Lee explaining why he is donating his salary increases rather than forfeit them in the first place: “The government will pay me my full salary because that is how the system will have to work…”
This either shows a lack of flexibility (typical textbook-style thinking – that’s the system so that’s how it must work) or a lack of initiative to evaluate the merits of an established system. Or perhaps both.
In any case, it clearly demonstrates a lack of leadership on the part of Lee. And we’re paying him in excess of S$2.5 million this year and S$3 million (or the equivalent of 5 peanuts) by the end of 2008?
Related story:
Ministers salaries – lets have a re-focus
World-class pay = world-class performance?
“Former National Development Minister Teh Cheang Wan, who overdosed on sleeping pills during a probe into allegations that he had accepted bribes. The other was former MP Choo Wee Kiang, who falsified invoices to secure $1.83 million in loans in 1999.”
Now…. this illustrates perfectly that PAP’s recruitment is not as flawless as they claim it to be.
I am convinced that the PAP is not a political party. It is in fact a private limited company. It’s motive, therefore, is to make as much money as possible.
Looked at this way, it’s hard to find fault with the PAP. After all, if it’s a business, it doesn’t have to answer to its consumers (read citizens). Those of us who have a problem with its services know that there is no money-back guarantee. As such if we are unhappy, we can always shop around (migrate) for something better.
And, of course, when the patriach of the business steps down he’d like nothing better than a family member to assume the chairmanship. Who can argue with that?
Now, the first rule of business is to eliminate the competition. This we know the PAP has done brilliantly well. There isn’t even any shelf space for competitor’s products.
What we have is a No.1 selling product. Note there isn’t any No.2 to No. 98. But we have a No. 99 and a No. 100. No threat other than their ability to make a little dent during promotion periods (elections).
The company motto is probably something like ‘Greed is Good.’ Because they have so many subsidiaries (Stat boards and GLCs) sucking up every available penny in circulation. What they miss is mopped up by friends in smaller businesses in return for their public support and loyalty.
And the consumer? It seems he is a moron. Totally gullible. Quite content to live on fish and porridge, if it comes to that.
When you look at the IBMs, Coca-Colas and GMs of this world, it is safe to assume that the PAP will keep dominating business in Singapore for some time to come.