He clarified. On National Day, he left no stones unturned.
You can call it backpedaling or rearguard defensiveness, but Mr Goh saw "a silver lining" in the "heated reactions" from Singaporeans to his comments on ministerial salaries last week.
He said the whole episode shows that "Singaporeans care deeply and hold leaders to account for their words and performance."
His magnanimity did not stop there. He said this: "I welcome diverse and dissenting views. I hope to engage them, perhaps through a forum in due course."
As such, I only have three lessons on Mr Goh's clarification and they are premised on his Facebook post of late.
Here goes...
1) On his statement that "those who are not able to command a high salary are "very, very mediocre" people", he clarified with this:
"I do not mean nor believe that Singaporeans at whatever level of income are mediocre. Those who have worked with me know people matter the most to me. That is what I am in politics for."
Alas, there is a saying that in the art of conversation, one must not only listen to what is said but what is not said. Because what is not said, what is unspoken, most times, speaks louder than words.
So, it goes without saying that Mr Goh, as a former PM for 14 years, and in politics for decades, know how politics is played.
If politics is about people management, with all their expectations, hopes and conflicting desires involved, it is political suicide to make that sweeping "very, very mediocre" statement. So there is more here than meets the eye about Mr Goh's quick-draw remarks.
If any of the 4G leaders would to make that same statement, which is clearly elitist, inflammatory and divisive, and meant it as it is said, he or she would risk losing a lot of votes in a GE as a result.
So, what is not said then is what Mr Goh has come forward now with great resolute to clarify (on the eve of the nation's birthday), that is, "those who have worked with me know people matter the most to me."
If there is any lingering doubt to the matter, this would clear it for good. He added: -
"Salaries are not our starting point in looking for ministers. Character, motivation, commitment, selflessness, practical abilities, competence and proven performance are the main attributes we look for. The first four attributes are veto factors."
2) The second lesson here needs a little explanation.
Now, while Mr Goh deemed "character, motivation, commitment and selflessness" as "veto factors" (meaning deciding factors), he is still insistent that he sees pay as important.
Here is why in his own words.
"In times of prolonged crisis and upheaval, I have no doubt that Singaporeans will step forward to serve. Money would not be a key vector. In peace and prosperity however, there are no dragons to slay. Personal aspirations, freedom, privacy and lifestyle take precedence."
If you discern his underlying intention, he is trying to be nothing more than realistic and practical in the whole scheme of things (or in relation to how our society has evolved in a capitalistist way of life).
A good example of a time of "prolonged crisis and upheaval" would be the time our birthing nation is struggling in the womb of independence and developing her wings to fly in the 70s and 80s.
During that time, upping the ministerial pay is the last thing in the pioneers' or founders' mind.
That is why LKY said that one of his greatest regrets was to deprive EW Barker of the millions he would have earned if he had worked in the private sector.
To me, that is high sacrifices in desperate times.
Alas, now that we are in our 53rd year of Independence and the struggles seemed to be over (at least from a make-it-or-die perspective), and we are flying high as First World Nation and Economy, the impression I get from Mr Goh is that in such times of peace and prosperity, since "there is no dragons to slay," it is therefore time to talk about no less "high sacrifices" from our 4G leaders but with a touch of comparable compensatory reward to sweeten the deal (and deepen the honey pot?).
Bottom line, Mr Goh is just being unapologetically practical about changing times.
And if you think about it, I guess we are what we have made for ourselves.
By this, I mean that we have studiously followed the predominantly capitalist road to fame and fortune, stability and resilience.
As such, with that road we have taken by conscious choice and technocratic engineering to nation building comes certain "legitimate expectations" we cannot escape from.
Those legitimate expectations have to do with a consumeristic, prosperity-minded, elevated standard-of-living and market-driven mindset.
You see, with Apple crossing the trillion dollar mark in market valuation, the richest billionaire hitting 150b in net worth and the youngest-to-be billionaire in her early twenties, you get the feeling that you can't be a minister in this day and age with an income that doesn't match those at the top tier of society. It somehow comes with the territory.
Mind you, it is still expectedly high sacrifices, yet with a touch of the silvery spoon of compensation to equalise status and maintain dignity in high places in an earnest bid to attract talent.
So, I believe that is Mr Goh's train of thought or process of reasoning. Perceptibly, there are no dragons to slay, no existential threat to worry about, no life-and-death sink hole to fill, so let's focus more on comparable compensation without losing sight on the four key vectors.
That about sums up his view expressed in staggered fashion over one week of clarification.
And lastly,
3) Mr Goh said: "Singaporeans know quality costs money - from durians to clothes to football players to military weapons."
And I think this applies to ministers too. They are up there with the costly durians, expensive football players and heavily invested military weapons.
In times of peace and prosperity, where "personal aspirations, freedom, privacy, and lifestyle takes precedence," the last thing our government wants to do is to shortchange our ministers with mismatched pay.
And this is what most Singaporeans (earning below $500k yearly) will have to come to accept about our ministers and their pay in such times of peace and prosperity.
It is not about getting "very, very mediocre" people in government when you pay below market rate, but it is about satisfying or meeting legitimate expectation (wrought by changing times) when it comes to attracting people into government by paying comparable salary.
The social and economic conditioning here is quite straightforward: If I am headhunted by the government, then I am deemed good enough for them; if I am deemed good enough for them, then I am worth above average wage; and if I am worth above average wage, I have to be paid above that - deal with it.
I guess I have to end this post on that note - dealing with it.
As a nation, we dream of equality but equality has always been a mirage and has to remain so because in a system dictated by market demand and supply, economic rent, capital gain and financialization where values and wealth are created by self-engineered market price surges, the inequality gap will always be unbridgeable.
In a changed world like this, I feel that the only hope for the poor to get less poor is for the rich to get much richer. It will therefore always be about ensuring the rich leads the poor out of poverty by making sure that they are paid more than enough first.
My only concern with that form of extrinsic motivation as part of the package to attract talent is that with such hedged financial security and increasing wealth that ironically widens even further the income and social gap, is there a risk that one's public service and duty may conflict with one's "personal aspirations, freedom, privacy, and lifestyle"?
In other words, will our leaders be seen to understand the visceral problems of the poor should the gap inevitably widens further? Will there also be an issue of legitimacy to lead and empathise when their pay is pegged to ever-rising market rates?
In such a situation, if the problem worsens, will trust - the glue of society - breaks down and collective disillusionment sets in?
Personally, it is hope that on this National Day, as we renew our collective commitment and resolve, we will see better days ahead.
But admittedly, the reality of things is this - just as there are dragons to slay during "times of prolonged crisis and upheaval," there are also dragons to slay during "times of peace and prosperity". One dragon is more scaly than the other, but no less sinister.
In fact, if you read the history of the rise and fall of civilisations, good times like peace and prosperity always precede an imminent fall because there is a greater tendency to take things for granted and let our guard down.
So, while the dragons to slay during bad times are mostly that which is external to us like war, social unrest and struggle for independence, the dragons to slay during good times are mostly that which is within us like complacency, arrogance and a mindset that this time, things are just different because we are in control. Cheerz.
No comments:
Post a Comment