It could attract smart, crafty people with little interest or passion in public service to try their luck in politics, instead of investing in an entrepreneurial venture.

With such high stakes, fortune hunters could start looking to both the ruling party and the opposition to have a crack at the rewards.

In the best-case scenario, the large financial rewards will succeed in attracting quality people with integrity and passion into public life.

But it could also stir the greedy and self-serving, not the best prospects for leadership, to come in, for the perks of holding office.

A milder phrase to describe the process would be “investing in a highly paid political career” or a worse one, “treating politics like buying a lottery ticket”.

For the fortune hunter, the criteria are not necessarily a readiness and capability to serve, but the ability to exploit opportunities, hard work, the gift of the gap and, of course, picking the winning party.

The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) will remain the top attraction for recruits, whatever their ability, since it will likely stay in power for some years to come. The opposition, too, will lure its share of fortune hunters.

For many, the incentive of a S$1.8mil (RM4.14mil) annual pay (excluding yearly incentive bonus and a life pension after 55) or even the raised MP’s allowance may be more profitable and less risky than starting a new business.

As a rule, the challenge of politics attracts many people, good or bad, but not in top-down Singapore, which has trouble finding enough people to stand for election.

But with the recent pay increase, things may change when the Lee Kuan Yew era ends. More Singaporeans (average monthly salary: S$1500 [RM3450]) may join the fray, not all for the right reasons.

The trouble will come, if more unworthy recruits make it into the ranks of either the ruling or opposition parties, and worse, making it to the top.

PAP supporters, however, say it is unlikely to work with their party, since it has a thorough process in getting the best possible recruits.

But it will severely test everyone’s screening capabilities, however good they may be. There is no fail-safe protection.

Undeniably, the PAP, with its better resources, will have the edge over the weak opposition in controlling bad elements; but even for it, slip-ups can happen.

All this may turn politics in Singapore into a dispassionate career and spawn a new breed of politicians with little public empathy, resulting in a quality decline in government or Parliament.

Will fortune hunters affect only the PAP, and not the opposition, because it offers a better chance for success? I believe the answer is no.

For people who seek office for the rewards, the choice of a political party or its platforms, is important only if they offer better prospects for election.

Some would hop from one to another if fortunes change. It has often happened elsewhere.

Despite its poor odds, the opposition will attract unwholesome elements now that the financial rewards justify the risks.

And why not. Their argument could be: If the PAP can be materialistic, why can’t we?

I think there will always be people willing to bet on the opposition winning an election one day when the Minister Mentor, aged 83, is no longer around.

With a history almost as old as the PAP and winning 38.4% of the contested votes last year, the Workers’ Party may be the second biggest attraction for recruits.

It will lure in the idealistic, the reformists and people opposed to what the PAP is doing, but also the more unscrupulous and self-serving.

“Opportunists who believe WP will do well in future may start investing in the possibility of it taking office in 10 or 15 years’ time,” said an academician.

The WP leaders are cautious moderates not known to be adventurous, and who know the pitfalls of recruiting wrong candidates.

If it had not exercised care in screening, it would have been able to put up many more candidates for the 2006 election, they had explained.

Critics of the high Cabinet pay have praised the two opposition parties in Parliament (WP and the Singapore Democratic Alliance) for speaking out forcefully against the rise.

Their three MPs were opposed to such astronomical pay, or benchmarking it to some of the top private sector earners.

However, some are disappointed that they had not categorically declared their parties were against the whole high salary structure, or undertake to dismantle it if they were in government.

One supporter said they should make it clear that they would campaign to scrap it and reduce Cabinet salaries to a level that more compatible with other advanced economies.

“And they’ll have to make Cabinet pay change an election issue in 2011,” said the Aljunied supporter.

He is one who feels the leaders should have taken a stronger stand on the pay issue. Instead it was public groundswell, especially on the Internet, which had led the criticism, he said.

“Failure to commit to cancel the increase could lead the public to misconstrue that they would want to retain the option of high salaries for themselves.

“Cynics may say they want a piece of the PAP cake as well as to eat it,” he added.

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com

                                                      Home