What riles me about this whole thing is the corruption argument. Apparently if the Ministers did not get the aforementioned pay increase, they might succumb to the temptations of corruption.
But yet their pay before this increase was not exactly peanuts ... according to today's paper, it was $1.2m for the entry-level Ministers. So $1.2m is a salary where they'd be tempted to look for a little money on the side but $1.6m is not?
And the corruption argument leaves me wondering:
1. Does this mean that the Ministers are of such low integrity that they'd rather fill their pockets with under-the-table $$ than do their jobs?
2. Since the PM's pay is now S$3.1m and Bush earns US$400k, does this mean that Bush is 5 times more likely to fall prey to corruption?
3. What of the average worker? We'll take someone who earns $40k a year (and many earn less than $40k). Does this mean he or she is 77.5 times more likely to take some side money?
Some more food for thought.
From today's paper, apparently Workers' Party MP Low Thia Khiang yesterday said that Finland, Denmark and Switzerland ranked higher than Singapore in certain studies on clean government and the standard of living, yet their leaders earned much less than those here.
MM Lee then replied: 'Their governments never produced the kind of transformation that we have. To make the transformation from what we were in 1959 or 1965, to what we are requires an extraordinary government with extraordinary government officers to support it.'
My answer is: but the people of Finland, Denmark and Switzerland did not have to sacrifice freedom of the press and freedom of speech. And the people of Finland, Denmark and Switzerland are consistently ranked higher than the people of Singapore in studies of happiness levels.
