| Singapore's
million dollar ministers have always been a national embarassment...now
the whole world watches on and laughs.....in total disgust and disdain. Despite a review, the Singapore government is not keeping up with calls for transformation |
||||
| New Stratis Times Kuala Lumpur January 10, 2012 By P.N. Balji A GOVERNMENT that enjoyed an uninterrupted 53-year grip on political power, created an improbable economic miracle and used laws brutally and skilfully to muzzle opposing views is now staring at a hole it has dug for itself. The main weakness of such a system in Singapore -- the lack of responsible checks and balances outside of government -- is slowly being exposed as official mistakes get highlighted in the online world and are lapped up by a population brought up to believe that this is a flawless government. Add to this the growing divide between the haves and have-nots, slower economic growth and officialdom's dilemma on how to change its style and substance of governance without discarding its ideological beliefs and you have the makings of a long-running testy relationship between the ruler and ruled. Many of the mistakes -- like the shortage and high cost of public housing, the sudden increase in the number of foreigners and the high salaries of political office-holders -- could have been avoided if there were a questioning media, a robust academia and effective think tanks. In the absence of such independent voices, the government was left in an air-conditioned bubble, immune from the heat that was developing outside. Then came the general election in May last year with the ruling People's Action Party's share of votes dipping to an all-time low of 60 per cent. The election body blow forced the government to want to change. But ideology prevents it from making the big bang moves. The recently announced proposals to slash ministerial salaries by between 36 and 53 per cent and the withdrawal of pensions for political office-holders is one example of this political dilemma: to make the salaries, a contentious issue since they were pushed through 17 years ago, palatable to the public but still high enough to draw talent. It is like being caught between a rock and a hard place. The cuts were indeed deep and steep, something that surprised even some critics. But these were ignored by opinions expressed in letters to the media and postings to the online world, which are full of disappointment and even anger. The focus is on the salaries the ministers will get even with these steep cuts: S$2.2 million (RM5.5 million) for the prime minister and S$1.1 million for an entry-level minister, still the highest for politicians anywhere in the world. The debate has moved on from the figures to issues like why the proposed salary benchmark should be based on the median wage of the top 1000 private sector professions and not that of world political leaders, why the prime minister should be given the leeway of paying bonuses of up to 13.5 months' salary, why the salary discount for public service is only 40 per cent and not even steeper and why ministers should still be paid MP allowances on top of their salaries. There is no end to the questions and criticisms which are putting the government on the back foot. It is not that officialdom is not changing, but that it is not keeping up with a public pushing for transformation, not incremental adjustments. This public mood claimed its first victim of the year last Friday, when the woman who ran the largest public transport system was hounded out of office by public sentiment after two long and unprecedented train disruptions last month. Saw Phaik Hwa had maintained that she was staying put, but then made a surprising turnaround and quit. Her company, SMRT, is a public-listed company but it is linked to Temasek Holdings and is seen as a government entity. And the train breakdowns were also blamed on the regulator, the Land Transport Authority, not paying enough attention to the way the company was run, especially after SMRT was put on the spot two years ago over two security lapses at its depots. Singapore is entering a critical phase with critics pushing strongly to highlight missteps and the government caught in wanting to listen and change but still holding strongly to its ideological roots. If a happy watermark is not reached and a new social compact not hammered out, expect the government-public tension to be kept on the boil until the next elections in five years time when another watershed result is likely. |
||||