- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
Subject: Essay by NCMP Yee Jenn Jong
Political Sacrifice – Fishing for the Unwilling January 18th, 2012
Personal sacrifice for politics is something we hear a lot of these
days since the committee report on ministerial pay came up. The word
was used many times in the parliament debate.
Dictionary.com gave several definitions of the word. Most relevant is
“the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the
sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing
claim.”
I touched on it in my speech yesterday because I felt strongly about
it. Prime Minister spoke about it, as did various PAP MPs, sharing of
sacrifices political office holders must make. I do not doubt the
office holders have had to make adjustments. In Singapore, career
elites have choices. From their perspective, they surrendered
something (a better career, privacy, etc) for the sake of something
that has a higher claim, something more noble in the sense that it is
serving the nation to keep things going.
But really, that’s what politics is about. It is the nature of
politics all over the world that there will be public scrutiny; there
will be challenges balancing family and work; and there will be
set-backs such as electoral loss. That’s what I shared in my speech.
It is not unique to office holders. In fact, under the current GRC
system, political set-backs have been rare (so far).
It was good to hear Mrs Lina Chiam shared about what Mr Chiam See Tong
had to go through in his political career in her speech. Ridicule,
drastic loss of income and more. There are many other local examples
we can name for those on the opposing side. Life is definitely tougher
on the other side. No one will say it is greener.
Our early political leaders from the ruling party have had to make
lots of sacrifices, something I admire them for. Men like Goh Keng
Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San, Hon Sui Sen and more persevered
through tough times and difficult challenges. They left a legacy and
we honour them for what they did. I wrote unashamedly to the newspaper
forums when Goh Keng Swee and S. Rajaratnam died. Then, I had also
shared with my staff by email circular about how we should emulate the
spirit embodied by these men.
Times have changed and the ruling party cannot get ‘good’ people to
come forth like what these early leaders did. But why is it so
difficult now? Is there a lot of sacrifice now? What about the early
days when pay was low and challenges were so much more?
Even with the reduced salaries proposed by the review committee or
what the Workers’ Party has proposed, the sums are more than decent
enough for any one to get by. For some, there may be a loss in income.
For others, there will even be an increment.
Really, how much does a person need in life to provide for the family?
We are not expecting politicians to scrimp and save and live a Spartan
life. Ministers will still be easily within the top 2,000th income
earners whichever method you use to compute. That’s 0.1% of the
working population, not bad at all. The system has been very fair thus
far with political office holders, even after retirement, at least in
the past 2 decades. We can see there is market demand for them from
government linked companies and in multinationals, and some make it
back into government appointments. They get by comfortably.
I had said in my speech that the reluctant will deem issues faced by
politicians as sacrifice. We will look back at things lost and view
them as sacrifice. But those who aspire to lead will welcome these as
challenges to be overcome. I shared about President Barrack Obama in
my speech. I read his autobiography when he was still contesting for
the Democrat nomination. When he was in Indonesia as a student (9
year-old, I think), he wrote in his essay that his ambition was to be
the president of the United States of America. That was a real tough
ambition to reach for given his family background and living half the
globe away. He took a tough and long road into politics too. He could
have been a well-paid lawyer, having graduated from an Ivy League
university. He chose instead to work on the ground as a community
organiser on a lowly paid salary. I admire his steadfast determination
to reach his goal and applauded when he finally reached it. He had an
aspiration, he persevered until he reached it.
The trouble is, there are too few in Singapore who aspire to lead. At
least there’s too few amongst the type of career elites that the
ruling party wish to attract. Why is this so?
I think there are two main reasons:
1. We do not create enough awareness in school about our nation, about
our political system, about our leaders and about issues important to
our country. We prefer to focus on academic subjects with definitive
answers, those at the back of the book. We rather focus on areas that
students can score better in. Subjects that require ability to handle
ambiguity and debate are shunned.
Youths become disinterested in politics. They see it as something for
the elite class. The elite class may feel they need to create more
wealth for themselves since they are in a system that enables them to
do so easily.
It is important to start them young. Start people thinking about what
it takes to keep Singapore going. Whichever political party they may
wish to eventually join is fine. The parties are here as part of a
properly functioning democracy to keep each other in check. Whoever
has the best package for the country will ultimately win.
2. We have created a political system that people feel they can do
well in their career and then wait to be headhunted into politics, if
at all they are interested. However when they have done well, they may
no longer wish to move into the difficult world of politics.
I feel Singapore is being run like a very large company. In a company,
we can hire top managers in (though in top private companies, top
managers are easily fired too). In politics, it is not appropriate to
do so. Politicians need to be connected to the ground. It is best they
work themselves through the system from ground up, win elections,
prove they can connect with people and then move up the chain. Selling
policies is very important. Hence, if one is connected well with the
ground, he/she can sell even the hardest of policies. He/she will be
savvy enough to figure how to work the policies subtly through.
In the commercial world, we can sometimes bulldoze things through. It
is a free market where people can come and go. A country is different.
Non-performing employees can be fired but not citizens. Citizens
decide the fate of politicians in a properly functioning democracy.
Hence, there can be a disconnect when inexperienced politicians
parachuted into the system try to implement policies like they are
running a company. They feel uncomfortable dealing with demanding
citizens.
We see potential office holders being paraded before each General
Elections like prized catches. It creates the perception that politics
is for the headhunted elite. They then enter the system and perpetuate
the same concept. Over time, people as a whole become disinterested in
a political career. They do not think about politics as a career. Then
they do well in their career and they are suddenly called into
politics. They surely would have to think hard about the sacrifices
they now have to make. If they were preparing themselves for or even
thinking about a political career, they would have less to think about
when the time comes.
We are fishing from a very small pond. We catch few fishes, because
there are few in the first place in the pond we are fishing at. So we
use more attractive baits to attract these few fishes out of their
comfort zone. But these fishes are well fed in the pond they are in.
There are lots of food there for them.
It is good to have some successful career people in cabinet. We need
not restrict ourselves to think that only those who are successful in
their careers will make good ministers. We have seen enough examples
of successful politicians all over the world who came from humble
backgrounds and careers. We can start fishing in a bigger pond. We can
cultivate the fishes from young so that there will be more interested
fishes who want to come out of their comfort zone when they are ready.
We like them to be ready as early as possible.
The debate is still ongoing. These are thoughts that come to me as I
soak in the debates, both in and outside of the House. I hope for the
good of Singapore, we will not have lack of good and willing fishes to
catch in the future. Then we need not have to think so hard of the
baits to use.
.
Yee Jenn Jong
Non-constituency Member of Parliament</SPAN></SPAN>
Political Sacrifice – Fishing for the Unwilling January 18th, 2012
Personal sacrifice for politics is something we hear a lot of these
days since the committee report on ministerial pay came up. The word
was used many times in the parliament debate.
Dictionary.com gave several definitions of the word. Most relevant is
“the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the
sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing
claim.”
I touched on it in my speech yesterday because I felt strongly about
it. Prime Minister spoke about it, as did various PAP MPs, sharing of
sacrifices political office holders must make. I do not doubt the
office holders have had to make adjustments. In Singapore, career
elites have choices. From their perspective, they surrendered
something (a better career, privacy, etc) for the sake of something
that has a higher claim, something more noble in the sense that it is
serving the nation to keep things going.
But really, that’s what politics is about. It is the nature of
politics all over the world that there will be public scrutiny; there
will be challenges balancing family and work; and there will be
set-backs such as electoral loss. That’s what I shared in my speech.
It is not unique to office holders. In fact, under the current GRC
system, political set-backs have been rare (so far).
It was good to hear Mrs Lina Chiam shared about what Mr Chiam See Tong
had to go through in his political career in her speech. Ridicule,
drastic loss of income and more. There are many other local examples
we can name for those on the opposing side. Life is definitely tougher
on the other side. No one will say it is greener.
Our early political leaders from the ruling party have had to make
lots of sacrifices, something I admire them for. Men like Goh Keng
Swee, S. Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San, Hon Sui Sen and more persevered
through tough times and difficult challenges. They left a legacy and
we honour them for what they did. I wrote unashamedly to the newspaper
forums when Goh Keng Swee and S. Rajaratnam died. Then, I had also
shared with my staff by email circular about how we should emulate the
spirit embodied by these men.
Times have changed and the ruling party cannot get ‘good’ people to
come forth like what these early leaders did. But why is it so
difficult now? Is there a lot of sacrifice now? What about the early
days when pay was low and challenges were so much more?
Even with the reduced salaries proposed by the review committee or
what the Workers’ Party has proposed, the sums are more than decent
enough for any one to get by. For some, there may be a loss in income.
For others, there will even be an increment.
Really, how much does a person need in life to provide for the family?
We are not expecting politicians to scrimp and save and live a Spartan
life. Ministers will still be easily within the top 2,000th income
earners whichever method you use to compute. That’s 0.1% of the
working population, not bad at all. The system has been very fair thus
far with political office holders, even after retirement, at least in
the past 2 decades. We can see there is market demand for them from
government linked companies and in multinationals, and some make it
back into government appointments. They get by comfortably.
I had said in my speech that the reluctant will deem issues faced by
politicians as sacrifice. We will look back at things lost and view
them as sacrifice. But those who aspire to lead will welcome these as
challenges to be overcome. I shared about President Barrack Obama in
my speech. I read his autobiography when he was still contesting for
the Democrat nomination. When he was in Indonesia as a student (9
year-old, I think), he wrote in his essay that his ambition was to be
the president of the United States of America. That was a real tough
ambition to reach for given his family background and living half the
globe away. He took a tough and long road into politics too. He could
have been a well-paid lawyer, having graduated from an Ivy League
university. He chose instead to work on the ground as a community
organiser on a lowly paid salary. I admire his steadfast determination
to reach his goal and applauded when he finally reached it. He had an
aspiration, he persevered until he reached it.
The trouble is, there are too few in Singapore who aspire to lead. At
least there’s too few amongst the type of career elites that the
ruling party wish to attract. Why is this so?
I think there are two main reasons:
1. We do not create enough awareness in school about our nation, about
our political system, about our leaders and about issues important to
our country. We prefer to focus on academic subjects with definitive
answers, those at the back of the book. We rather focus on areas that
students can score better in. Subjects that require ability to handle
ambiguity and debate are shunned.
Youths become disinterested in politics. They see it as something for
the elite class. The elite class may feel they need to create more
wealth for themselves since they are in a system that enables them to
do so easily.
It is important to start them young. Start people thinking about what
it takes to keep Singapore going. Whichever political party they may
wish to eventually join is fine. The parties are here as part of a
properly functioning democracy to keep each other in check. Whoever
has the best package for the country will ultimately win.
2. We have created a political system that people feel they can do
well in their career and then wait to be headhunted into politics, if
at all they are interested. However when they have done well, they may
no longer wish to move into the difficult world of politics.
I feel Singapore is being run like a very large company. In a company,
we can hire top managers in (though in top private companies, top
managers are easily fired too). In politics, it is not appropriate to
do so. Politicians need to be connected to the ground. It is best they
work themselves through the system from ground up, win elections,
prove they can connect with people and then move up the chain. Selling
policies is very important. Hence, if one is connected well with the
ground, he/she can sell even the hardest of policies. He/she will be
savvy enough to figure how to work the policies subtly through.
In the commercial world, we can sometimes bulldoze things through. It
is a free market where people can come and go. A country is different.
Non-performing employees can be fired but not citizens. Citizens
decide the fate of politicians in a properly functioning democracy.
Hence, there can be a disconnect when inexperienced politicians
parachuted into the system try to implement policies like they are
running a company. They feel uncomfortable dealing with demanding
citizens.
We see potential office holders being paraded before each General
Elections like prized catches. It creates the perception that politics
is for the headhunted elite. They then enter the system and perpetuate
the same concept. Over time, people as a whole become disinterested in
a political career. They do not think about politics as a career. Then
they do well in their career and they are suddenly called into
politics. They surely would have to think hard about the sacrifices
they now have to make. If they were preparing themselves for or even
thinking about a political career, they would have less to think about
when the time comes.
We are fishing from a very small pond. We catch few fishes, because
there are few in the first place in the pond we are fishing at. So we
use more attractive baits to attract these few fishes out of their
comfort zone. But these fishes are well fed in the pond they are in.
There are lots of food there for them.
It is good to have some successful career people in cabinet. We need
not restrict ourselves to think that only those who are successful in
their careers will make good ministers. We have seen enough examples
of successful politicians all over the world who came from humble
backgrounds and careers. We can start fishing in a bigger pond. We can
cultivate the fishes from young so that there will be more interested
fishes who want to come out of their comfort zone when they are ready.
We like them to be ready as early as possible.
The debate is still ongoing. These are thoughts that come to me as I
soak in the debates, both in and outside of the House. I hope for the
good of Singapore, we will not have lack of good and willing fishes to
catch in the future. Then we need not have to think so hard of the
baits to use.
.
Yee Jenn Jong
Non-constituency Member of Parliament</SPAN></SPAN>
