- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,634
- Points
- 0
Speech – Parliamentary Debate on the recommendations of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries (18 Jan 2012)
Thank you Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts.
A lot of views have been shared over the past few days in Parliament and much has been exchanged on the topic both in and out of this house. Many have taken an interest in this topic.
I would like to take a different tact and share more on the rhetoric and reality of service.
I am a new Member of Parliament, as many of my friends are on both sides of the house. This debate is useful for us to take a few steps back and ask ourselves very fundamental questions.
I will address 3 themes today.
Why we serve? What price our service? And the rhetoric and reality of service.
We serve
We serve because we all in this House believe that this place called Singapore is our home and it is worth fighting for. We may have different views, but if you strip the politics or rhetoric out of these few days’ exchanges, there is a lot more in common than we care to admit.
We should not try to speak as if we are the most committed, most passionate, principled etc. We all are, in our own ways.
Secondly, as honourable Mr. Chen Show Mao states so eloquently, we serve because it is a privilege and I agree. I would add that we serve because it is a calling. It is not a career. It is an honour that all of us do not take lightly. I think all of us here believe in this.
Importantly, we make sure that we do the real work on the ground and we serve because we want to make a difference. For example, there is the prospect of an economic downturn coming. Not everything is within our control but we have been planning on how best to ride it, manage it, and to look after Singaporeans. Livelihoods are at stake. We do what we can, as we do on a whole range of issues. It is not just talk and debate.
Things are not perfect by far, but we continue to try and do as best we can.
On balance, Singapore is in pretty good shape considering the difficulties in the last decade or so.
Our work continues.
Who do we serve? We serve our people, our country, for today and for tomorrow. As the honourable Mr. Yee Jenn Jong states, Singapore is not a company nor a business. It cannot be run as such. All of us agree. It is far more than that. But should we not be prudent? Should we not put in place systems and processes to keep things going well? Should we look at numbers? Should we look at details? Should we make those difficult decisions that are sometimes necessary but painful for some?
We face these decisions everyday in our households, do we not? At our work place? These are the realities of life. There is no point pretending otherwise and it is no less for a country. Does addressing these things make Singapore a company which is indicative when you made your statement? We address these because we are responsible and we care for well being of our people and our nation.
Let me share with you this card I received on Monday during my Meet-the-People Session from one of my residents. She is a single mother with an abusive ex-husband, with school-going children and was finding it difficult to secure a rental flat.
It was addressed to Member of Parliament, Mr. Tan, not Minister. (I highlighted this because of statements made that we were Ministers first rather than being an MP first)
谢谢你给我的帮助, 孩子们已经搬进新家了。心里对您的感激永远不会忘记。您帮助了我重新开始人生的第一步，也是最困难的第的一步。我会好好珍惜和努力往前走。 在这里还是要多一次说谢谢您。 祝您新年快乐、万事如意。
(In English) Thank you for your help. The children have moved into their new home. In our hearts, we will never forget your help. You have helped me to take the first, which is also the most difficult, step to begin our lives afresh. I will treasure this and will continue to work hard to move forward. Thank you once again and Happy Lunar New Year.
This is not unique – I think all of us from both sides of the House receive such cards, acknowledgements from time to time.
What price our service?
We are all Members of Parliament, elected by the people.
Can we price our responsibilities? Impossible. This effort is not about pricing the office. But we all know that once we move beyond the proclamations of service, we need to work the mechanics of this. It is something we need to do, whatever the formula.
As we have seen, Worker’s Party accepts that we need to do that as well. Honestly, I think these principles are not dissimilar and are in the same ballpark. The numbers don’t necessarily differ greatly, depending on what the performance is and so forth, and I don’t intend to go into details on this.
So is the opposition also pricing our service as well in this effort? Of course not!
Are the models very different? So let’s look at this.
A very emphatic statement was made about us being MPs first. Indeed we are. But I was curious when Honourable Member Pritam Singh made these grand statements of a political nature - that for us, we are Ministers first, before MPs. There is no such thing. He added that there is only the top tier that can become Ministers. I would suggest that it is rather untruthful. We are MPs first unlike certain MPs who have stated that it is not their responsibility to look after the low-income group, that it is the Government’s responsibility.
That is why all of us as Members of Parliament, even as office holders, make sure we look after our residents as best as we can. We push the Government to do more, and complement the national efforts when we are able to. We do not wish away our responsibilities. We walk the talk as best as we can.
The Worker’s Party suggests that an MP's pay be based on MX9 because it is an extension of public service. But then again, MX9 is also based on market considerations. This is part of the entire pay structure of the civil service - from MX 9 to beyond the Admin Service pay. We look at the private sector pay and adjust it accordingly. MX 9 is the entry level to the Super scale level. So I suppose we add in some multiples to make up a credible political number.
So on one hand – you have multiples of a top civil servant’s pay at MX9. On the other hand, as proposed by Mr. Gerard Ee’s committee – a so-called discount factor on the top 1000.
Mr. Chen states that political service is not a discount factor. I agree. It is not. I have talked about why we serve.
So in the same spirit, would it be correct to say that in WP’s reckoning, that Political Service is a “mark-up factor?”
I don’t think so. That would be a cheap political shot. Because that is not what you mean.
My main puzzle is a logical one: The Workers’ Party formula must come from some foundational perspectives – either it chooses the market-peg that we have worked on, or it puts forward another basis all together. Pegging it to the public sector sounds good at first glance, but it does not count because the public sector too derives from that market-peg. So statements like “Cabinet is not an extension of the Private Sector” again sounds very good and we agree. But does it not then follow that under the Workers’ Party formulation, “the public sector is an extension of the private”? Surely not, as well.
Pays are linked across sectors not because their missions are similar but because the empirical reality is that the same pool of people can flow to either side. There is no point pretending otherwise.
So I suggest that we are, in many ways, on the same song sheet. Which leads me to the last point.
The rhetoric and reality of service
As I said earlier, I totally agree political service is a privilege.
But you know it’s not a credit card-sort of privilege and membership in Parliament does come with some privileges. I don’t primarily think of it that way nor many of my fellow members. For me, it is a calling to serve. It is a hard-won honour, but more importantly, it is a responsibility. Our responsibility as leaders is to apply our hearts and also our minds to best serve our people. There are practical issues we need to manage - the budget, sustainability, and trade-offs. They may not be emotive or gut stirring, but that is what responsible leadership is about.
Responsibility is not about flowery rhetoric but about translating this belief into reality on a daily basis, to make things better for our people.
Establishing a fair, transparent and pragmatic pay structure is part of that responsibility. Why do we pretend and paint it in negative political tones when in reality, you are doing very much the same with your approach?
What I found most troubling was that a committee was set up in good faith to seriously review the political salaries. Yet it now appears that the opposition has chosen not to share with the Committee the ideas that they are so passionately championing. I understand that Mr. Yee has explained. But two days ago, Mr. Gerald Giam would not give a clear answer. But I thought Mr. Yee’s response yesterday was illuminating. In essence, the thrust of what he said was - there is no need to share that much with the Committee because they would rather table it in Parliament. But the fact of the matter is that the Review Committee was set up to review the structure and the robust debate that we have today can still continue.
So what does this suggest? I think if we are sincere in trying to make things better, we should help the committee do the best job possible rather than focus on gamesmanship in Parliament.
Is this the First World Parliament that they are talking about? I see many First World Parliaments out there floundering. They consume their future and are embroiled in rhetoric and politics that keep them from helping their countries get out of their respective ruts.
But I trust that that is not the First World Parliament that you are talking about. And I think all of us want a model that works for us – regardless of what you want to call it.
There is this matter of sacrifice that I would like to address. It was shared that political service is not about sacrifice.
We don't all wrap ourselves in a flag and proclaim our patriotism. I believe all of us on both sides of the House serve for the right reason. We all take different routes. The Honourable Mr. Chen for example left Singapore for many years. He became exceedingly successful and then returned to serve our people. Some of us have stayed on and served our nation in various capacities. For some of us, it is our entire lives. And in our own simple way, we are proud to have served and to continue serving.
I admire those who proudly proclaim that there is no sacrifice in stepping forward to political service. It took me a long time to decide even though I had been serving in our Army. Political service is public service but somewhat different. Does this make me a less committed Singaporean?
I am pained by the knowledge that I will miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever. In time, I will look back, and there will be gaps. But that’s life.
I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivializes all of us who do cherish these.
Does that make all of us lesser beings?
Political office is a privilege, a calling and a responsibility. Whatever sacrifices there may be, we do so because we believe there is a higher calling and it is worth this effort to step forward.
As a Christian, I believe that serving my fellow-Singaporeans is my responsibility and count it as a blessing that I am able to do so.
As a soldier, I know and I have seen with my own eyes that real and true service involves sacrifice all the time. We sacrifice what we hold dear to serve something bigger than ourselves.
There is no dollar value that can be attached to this.
And neither should we play games by competing to see who can proclaim their credentials louder with savvy emotive laden language. Or who is more noble with the cleverer turn of phrase.
It is ultimately about human lives and our people’s future. There are real concerns that our people struggle with, and it is our duty to make lives better.
While it may not make for good politics, we believe that it is the right thing to address this pay issue head on.
In being an honest government and I am not talking about corruption here, we try our best to deal with realities and to squarely address them.
Rhetoric is important but it is more important to carry out our responsibilities as best we can.
Ministerial Pay is something we need to decide on. Before the elections, I made a statement that this is something that we should review. I believe the recommendations are fair, and provide us a reasonable basis to implement it sensibly.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr. Tan Chuan-Jin
Minister of State (Manpower & National Development)
MP, Marine Parade GRC
Thank you Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts.
A lot of views have been shared over the past few days in Parliament and much has been exchanged on the topic both in and out of this house. Many have taken an interest in this topic.
I would like to take a different tact and share more on the rhetoric and reality of service.
I am a new Member of Parliament, as many of my friends are on both sides of the house. This debate is useful for us to take a few steps back and ask ourselves very fundamental questions.
I will address 3 themes today.
Why we serve? What price our service? And the rhetoric and reality of service.
We serve
We serve because we all in this House believe that this place called Singapore is our home and it is worth fighting for. We may have different views, but if you strip the politics or rhetoric out of these few days’ exchanges, there is a lot more in common than we care to admit.
We should not try to speak as if we are the most committed, most passionate, principled etc. We all are, in our own ways.
Secondly, as honourable Mr. Chen Show Mao states so eloquently, we serve because it is a privilege and I agree. I would add that we serve because it is a calling. It is not a career. It is an honour that all of us do not take lightly. I think all of us here believe in this.
Importantly, we make sure that we do the real work on the ground and we serve because we want to make a difference. For example, there is the prospect of an economic downturn coming. Not everything is within our control but we have been planning on how best to ride it, manage it, and to look after Singaporeans. Livelihoods are at stake. We do what we can, as we do on a whole range of issues. It is not just talk and debate.
Things are not perfect by far, but we continue to try and do as best we can.
On balance, Singapore is in pretty good shape considering the difficulties in the last decade or so.
Our work continues.
Who do we serve? We serve our people, our country, for today and for tomorrow. As the honourable Mr. Yee Jenn Jong states, Singapore is not a company nor a business. It cannot be run as such. All of us agree. It is far more than that. But should we not be prudent? Should we not put in place systems and processes to keep things going well? Should we look at numbers? Should we look at details? Should we make those difficult decisions that are sometimes necessary but painful for some?
We face these decisions everyday in our households, do we not? At our work place? These are the realities of life. There is no point pretending otherwise and it is no less for a country. Does addressing these things make Singapore a company which is indicative when you made your statement? We address these because we are responsible and we care for well being of our people and our nation.
Let me share with you this card I received on Monday during my Meet-the-People Session from one of my residents. She is a single mother with an abusive ex-husband, with school-going children and was finding it difficult to secure a rental flat.
It was addressed to Member of Parliament, Mr. Tan, not Minister. (I highlighted this because of statements made that we were Ministers first rather than being an MP first)
谢谢你给我的帮助, 孩子们已经搬进新家了。心里对您的感激永远不会忘记。您帮助了我重新开始人生的第一步，也是最困难的第的一步。我会好好珍惜和努力往前走。 在这里还是要多一次说谢谢您。 祝您新年快乐、万事如意。
(In English) Thank you for your help. The children have moved into their new home. In our hearts, we will never forget your help. You have helped me to take the first, which is also the most difficult, step to begin our lives afresh. I will treasure this and will continue to work hard to move forward. Thank you once again and Happy Lunar New Year.
This is not unique – I think all of us from both sides of the House receive such cards, acknowledgements from time to time.
What price our service?
We are all Members of Parliament, elected by the people.
Can we price our responsibilities? Impossible. This effort is not about pricing the office. But we all know that once we move beyond the proclamations of service, we need to work the mechanics of this. It is something we need to do, whatever the formula.
As we have seen, Worker’s Party accepts that we need to do that as well. Honestly, I think these principles are not dissimilar and are in the same ballpark. The numbers don’t necessarily differ greatly, depending on what the performance is and so forth, and I don’t intend to go into details on this.
So is the opposition also pricing our service as well in this effort? Of course not!
Are the models very different? So let’s look at this.
A very emphatic statement was made about us being MPs first. Indeed we are. But I was curious when Honourable Member Pritam Singh made these grand statements of a political nature - that for us, we are Ministers first, before MPs. There is no such thing. He added that there is only the top tier that can become Ministers. I would suggest that it is rather untruthful. We are MPs first unlike certain MPs who have stated that it is not their responsibility to look after the low-income group, that it is the Government’s responsibility.
That is why all of us as Members of Parliament, even as office holders, make sure we look after our residents as best as we can. We push the Government to do more, and complement the national efforts when we are able to. We do not wish away our responsibilities. We walk the talk as best as we can.
The Worker’s Party suggests that an MP's pay be based on MX9 because it is an extension of public service. But then again, MX9 is also based on market considerations. This is part of the entire pay structure of the civil service - from MX 9 to beyond the Admin Service pay. We look at the private sector pay and adjust it accordingly. MX 9 is the entry level to the Super scale level. So I suppose we add in some multiples to make up a credible political number.
So on one hand – you have multiples of a top civil servant’s pay at MX9. On the other hand, as proposed by Mr. Gerard Ee’s committee – a so-called discount factor on the top 1000.
Mr. Chen states that political service is not a discount factor. I agree. It is not. I have talked about why we serve.
So in the same spirit, would it be correct to say that in WP’s reckoning, that Political Service is a “mark-up factor?”
I don’t think so. That would be a cheap political shot. Because that is not what you mean.
My main puzzle is a logical one: The Workers’ Party formula must come from some foundational perspectives – either it chooses the market-peg that we have worked on, or it puts forward another basis all together. Pegging it to the public sector sounds good at first glance, but it does not count because the public sector too derives from that market-peg. So statements like “Cabinet is not an extension of the Private Sector” again sounds very good and we agree. But does it not then follow that under the Workers’ Party formulation, “the public sector is an extension of the private”? Surely not, as well.
Pays are linked across sectors not because their missions are similar but because the empirical reality is that the same pool of people can flow to either side. There is no point pretending otherwise.
So I suggest that we are, in many ways, on the same song sheet. Which leads me to the last point.
The rhetoric and reality of service
As I said earlier, I totally agree political service is a privilege.
But you know it’s not a credit card-sort of privilege and membership in Parliament does come with some privileges. I don’t primarily think of it that way nor many of my fellow members. For me, it is a calling to serve. It is a hard-won honour, but more importantly, it is a responsibility. Our responsibility as leaders is to apply our hearts and also our minds to best serve our people. There are practical issues we need to manage - the budget, sustainability, and trade-offs. They may not be emotive or gut stirring, but that is what responsible leadership is about.
Responsibility is not about flowery rhetoric but about translating this belief into reality on a daily basis, to make things better for our people.
Establishing a fair, transparent and pragmatic pay structure is part of that responsibility. Why do we pretend and paint it in negative political tones when in reality, you are doing very much the same with your approach?
What I found most troubling was that a committee was set up in good faith to seriously review the political salaries. Yet it now appears that the opposition has chosen not to share with the Committee the ideas that they are so passionately championing. I understand that Mr. Yee has explained. But two days ago, Mr. Gerald Giam would not give a clear answer. But I thought Mr. Yee’s response yesterday was illuminating. In essence, the thrust of what he said was - there is no need to share that much with the Committee because they would rather table it in Parliament. But the fact of the matter is that the Review Committee was set up to review the structure and the robust debate that we have today can still continue.
So what does this suggest? I think if we are sincere in trying to make things better, we should help the committee do the best job possible rather than focus on gamesmanship in Parliament.
Is this the First World Parliament that they are talking about? I see many First World Parliaments out there floundering. They consume their future and are embroiled in rhetoric and politics that keep them from helping their countries get out of their respective ruts.
But I trust that that is not the First World Parliament that you are talking about. And I think all of us want a model that works for us – regardless of what you want to call it.
There is this matter of sacrifice that I would like to address. It was shared that political service is not about sacrifice.
We don't all wrap ourselves in a flag and proclaim our patriotism. I believe all of us on both sides of the House serve for the right reason. We all take different routes. The Honourable Mr. Chen for example left Singapore for many years. He became exceedingly successful and then returned to serve our people. Some of us have stayed on and served our nation in various capacities. For some of us, it is our entire lives. And in our own simple way, we are proud to have served and to continue serving.
I admire those who proudly proclaim that there is no sacrifice in stepping forward to political service. It took me a long time to decide even though I had been serving in our Army. Political service is public service but somewhat different. Does this make me a less committed Singaporean?
I am pained by the knowledge that I will miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever. In time, I will look back, and there will be gaps. But that’s life.
I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivializes all of us who do cherish these.
Does that make all of us lesser beings?
Political office is a privilege, a calling and a responsibility. Whatever sacrifices there may be, we do so because we believe there is a higher calling and it is worth this effort to step forward.
As a Christian, I believe that serving my fellow-Singaporeans is my responsibility and count it as a blessing that I am able to do so.
As a soldier, I know and I have seen with my own eyes that real and true service involves sacrifice all the time. We sacrifice what we hold dear to serve something bigger than ourselves.
There is no dollar value that can be attached to this.
And neither should we play games by competing to see who can proclaim their credentials louder with savvy emotive laden language. Or who is more noble with the cleverer turn of phrase.
It is ultimately about human lives and our people’s future. There are real concerns that our people struggle with, and it is our duty to make lives better.
While it may not make for good politics, we believe that it is the right thing to address this pay issue head on.
In being an honest government and I am not talking about corruption here, we try our best to deal with realities and to squarely address them.
Rhetoric is important but it is more important to carry out our responsibilities as best we can.
Ministerial Pay is something we need to decide on. Before the elections, I made a statement that this is something that we should review. I believe the recommendations are fair, and provide us a reasonable basis to implement it sensibly.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.
Mr. Tan Chuan-Jin
Minister of State (Manpower & National Development)
MP, Marine Parade GRC
Last edited:
