The headline in today’s Straits Times (19 January 2012) points to a ‘real progress’ in the ministerial pay debate. Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Teo Chee Hean said that ‘we [the House] have come a very long way on this issue of political salaries and have moved much closer together, members from both sides of the House.” DPM Teo was said to have been struck at the “degree of convergence and agreement” achieved over the past three days.
Much has been commented on the pay formula and the benchmark proposed by the different stakeholders in this latest debate on the remunerations for political office. I shall not add to the chorus of opinions on the technical aspects of this debate involving formulas and pay scales, which I believed I am inadequate to assess and any attempt on my part to do so would be far from being constructive. Some have questioned the poor showing by Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament during the 3-days debate, and to a certain extent, these critics are not entirely mistaken. WP members of Parliament have as much to learn as any Member of Parliament from the People’s Action Party (PAP). There are lessons to be learnt and the nation-state of Singapore stands to benefit from the continual development in the parliamentary depth of both the PAP and WP.
With this in mind, the PAP should seriously re-look at itself for trying to play the moral high ground not only in its central arguments in support of the proposals made by the Committee to review ministerial salaries but also in attempting to accuse the WP of being “inconsistent and playing political games”. Minister of State for National Development Tan Chuan-Jin echoed the accusations made in Parliament by Mr. Hri Kumar and tried to paint the WP as being insincere or at least, he was trying to allude to that. Mr. Baey Yam Keng went as far as to suggest that were “other political motivations.” Any political grandstanding in Parliament for one’s own party interests without any due regards for Singaporeans and their interest is regrettable. However, any attempt by the government to paint political grandstanding for party interests on the part of the WP in the name of putting national interests first by the PAP is pure hypocrisy. Singaporeans are intelligent enough to see that the PAP is no less a political party than the WP.
In the first place, why is there even a need to convene a committee to review ministerial salaries, setting in place a subsequent debate on the issue? The answer to my above question: Politics and the mechanics of national elections set in place and driven by the will of the electorate, which unfortunately runs against the agenda that the PAP wanted to set. Loosely termed, “a U-turn”.
Real progress came not from the political courage and convictions of the PAP but from the verdict of 7th May 2011. I was pretty surprised that the contribution of the ordinary Singaporean was not recognised in length during the course of the entire debate. Instead, it shuffles between “sacrifices”, “principles”, “political grandstanding” and “formulas”
In that sense, fundamentally DPM Teo was referring to “real progress, rhetorical at best and U-turn in nature.”
Filed under: PAP, Parliament, Singapore, Workers' Party, Ministerial Salaries, Teo Chee Hean
(The posting on my FB) is not meant to mock WP, but to congratulate Chen Jiaxi Bernard 陈家喜 for his honesty.[1]
He spoke of WP’s poor showing in the recent parliamentary debate, and I agree.
Several factors beyond its control were obviously loaded against it from the onset – a PAP-dominated house, seasoned PAP MPs matched against the fumbling inexperience of the young blue Turks (especially since its own heavyweight Chairperson and Sec-Gen cowered in silence), etc.
But ultimately WP did itself in.
The premise leading to the debate was loaded against it. Its GE candidates had joined other Opposition parties in exploiting the issue of Ministerial salary to win votes, it was caught switching its own position over the years and yet ultimately proposed pretty much the same quantum as the committee.
During one of GE rallies, Pritam Singh said: “We do not have your million-dollar salary.” Yet ironically, his own party’s proposal left the salary as such – million-dollar.
The horrendous quality of the homework behind its proposal, ill-preparation for debate and poor strategizing was an open invitation to a parliamentary barrage. CSM carrying the debate to his FB instead of bravely standing up to PAP’s verbal onslaught was itself abhorrent.
Worse, to harp about ‘First World Parliament’ throughout the GE and then have one of its MP speak repulsively of “golden teeth” is plainly duplicitous, self-slapping and ultimately unbecoming.
And jaw-dropping.
Also, I have perceived a rising level of arrogance in WP, especially in several key members of the party. (You will know they are by the frequency by which they appear on my FB postings).
This started before the last GE and escalated since they won the GRC. WP needs to start recognizing this.
And as Bernard Chen said: it has “much to learn”. It had better start soon.
PS. it is funny why Bernard ask: ” ”In the first place, why is there even a need to convene a committee to review ministerial salaries, setting in place a subsequent debate on the issue?”
Did WP candidates not complain about the million-dollar salary during the GE?