Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is also Minister-in-charge of the civil service, said that while “there is no perfect method for doing this benchmarking”, the current method had been debated thoroughly in 1994 and had the support of the House.
Workers’ Party’s Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Government to consider modifying the current benchmarks to “a more equitable and sustainable one”.
“We suggest that the benchmark should take into account international practice, in particular countries such as Switzerland, Denmark and Finland,” he said, pointing out that these countries have ministers who are paid lower than Singapore.
He noted that these countries have a pay adjustment scheme, but “unlike Singapore, they all do not have a sure-win formula that ensures civil servants always have the best deal by benchmarking specifically to the top few earners”.
In the end, he argued, there must be a non-financial element to public service.
“There’s simply no point in offering high remuneration just to entice someone to serve if what he is interested in is to make more and more money for himself and his family in pursuit of material interests.
“Don’t forget that even if you don’t pay peanuts but pay with a bigger piece, say, a banana, you can still get a monkey,” he said.
Also arguing against the method of benchmarking was Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong.
He said: “I think this is unfair to the taxpayer who is footing the bill, because the high-performance managers, the CEOs are paid all kinds of extras, incentives, perks such as bonuses and stock options, and they also get bonus shares.
“In other words, their salaries are highly inflated. How can our ministers take that as a benchmark?”
A fairer way, he said, is to peg ministers’ salaries to those of ministers of other First World countries.
“I think Hong Kong is a good country to follow,” Mr Chiam said. “Hong Kong is an Asian country about the size of Singapore. It is paying its head of government about $600,000 a year, or about $50,000 a month. I think this is a fair salary,” he said.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Worker's Party is of the view that the Government should consider modifying the current benchmark in place of a more equitable and sustainable one. We suggest that the benchmark should take into account international practice, in particular, countries that could be taken into consideration would be those just cited, such as Switzerland, Denmark and Finland as well as those developed countries.
The Minister Mentor, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): A point of clarification, Sir. The Member has compared Singapore against Switzerland, Denmark and Finland. Can I ask him if he considers Singapore's population to resource ratio equal to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland?
Second, have they brought the standard of living of their people up, multi-fold times, from third-world to first-world in one generation? To maintain that quality of government both in the political leadership that sets the tone for the whole civil service and for the whole country, can you get a Swiss-type government, Finnish-type government or a Danish government to bring about the results that Singapore has brought about in their own countries, let alone bringing them and their systems into Singapore? Please explain.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I have to admit that these are the reports that I got from the United Nations. They have put up these reports. I believe that, based on the reports of what they have assessed today, they are not lousier than Singapore, in terms of living standards or the performance of the government. They have different conditions from us, but I gather that when we move forward, we are also emulating the standard of living of Switzerland. Are we not?
Mr Lee Kuan Yew: The Member has not answered my question. Is he saying that we are comparing apples with apples? Is he saying that the system of government in Finland, Denmark and Switzerland can bring them from First World to a superpower? Can they do that? Does he realise that Singapore's GDP is only one-third of its external trade - that our external trade is three and a half times that of our GDP, higher than Hong Kong, by three times. And that if this economy ever falters, it is the end of Singapore and its First World status.
Denmark, Switzerland and Finland are part of Europe. They can fail and they are still caught in a European situation. If we fail here, we fall back to a South East Asian situation. Just look around you.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, is the Minister Mentor saying that without paying such a high salary, we are bound to fail? Even if we pay top-earner salaries, I do not think the present Government can bring Singapore to superpower status.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I am putting a simple question and ask for his clarification. He has compared Singapore as if it were a Denmark, a Switzerland or a Finland. Their system, their governments, never produced the kind of transformation that we have had, and their system and their governments have a broader base, and can afford a mediocre government.
The Singapore base is less than 700 square kilometres. When we started, it was less than 600 square kilometres. Could the system in Denmark, Switzerland or Finland produce a transformation as in Singapore?
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, on what basis does Minister Mentor think that if the system in Denmark and Switzerland is put in Singapore it will not be able to transform Singapore into what we are today? I want to know what is the basis. I have no claim that it will happen. But I would like to know, from the wisdom of Minister Mentor, why he thinks that it will not happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Low, I do not think that you can see the clarification of Minister Mentor! Mr Lee.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I would like the Member to explain why he thinks Singapore is comparable to Denmark, Switzerland and Finland. Look at the size of the country, the location of the country, the resources of each country and the history of its people. Then look at Singapore, its size, its history and the nature of its population.
To make the transformation from what we were in 1959 or 1965, whichever the starting point, to what we are requires an extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers to support it, to bring to where it is.
If we go back to an ordinary system that exists around us, then we will go down to those levels. It is as simple as that. There is no guarantee that Singapore with less than 700 square kilometres can maintain this position.
