Well, Sylvia Lim’s motion on Parti Liyani’s case will not be discussed in Parliament next week. She “lost” fair and square by way of ballot. “When more than one MP have submitted an adjournment motion, the MP who gets to speak at a sitting is decided by ballot.” (Lim Min Zhang, ST).
Between Louis Ng (whose topic for discussion is about second-hand cigarette smoking during covid) and Sylvia’s inequality issue, Ng won the ballot.
But, not to worry, the PAP MPs will be taking on that issue. It seems like Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok), Vikram Nair (Sembawang GRC) and Tan Wu Meng (Jurong GRC) will be tabling it for discussion, with our Law Minister helming it in a ministerial statement on Monday.
Somehow, this reminded me of the time when PM Lee wrote a memo to all his ministers, calling it the “Rules of Prudence” just after the PAP won a resounding mandate in the 2015 election.
He called upon the ministers to be “servants of the people, not masters." He cautioned that MPs should not "mistake the strong mandate election result to mean that our efforts have succeeded, and that we can afford to slacken."
Further, PM Lee also expected them to attend all Parliament sittings unless they have have a valid reason. He said, "Overtime, the public will see that PAP backbenchers are as effective as opposition MPs, if not better, at holding ministers to account, getting issues fully debated, and influencing policies for the better."
Well, that seems like a good rule of prudence - tempering electoral victory in 2015 with a precautionary note to remember one’s civic duty and responsibility.
But the inequality issue that many people has to confront everyday, which has come to glaring-light in the Parti vs Liew Mun Leong’s case, is, I believe, something that goes beyond just a week of intense discussion in Parliament.
We all know that. That is the reality of things. And the enduring issue is this - “How far do we want to go down that rabbit hole to address the root cause of an unequal society, with gap widening even more with the new constricted world that is emerging in the shadow of the covid-19 pandemic?”
Where does this rabbit hole then lead us?
Mm...in my view, the first motion about addressing inequality ought to be about the disproportionate growth of privileges of the status quo. Underscore “disproportionate”.
In any event, this is best explained with a scripture. In Matthew, Jesus says: “To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich: from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
I know there’s a context behind that scripture, but whether prophetic or not, the Matthew effect has become an economic law with pervasive social consequences upon which the poor often has to bear the brunt of it.
And when you throw in our technocratically fashioned, Singapore-styled meritocracy into the Matthew Effect mix, you get a disconcerting cocktail of good parliamentary intentions and well-intended incremental measures to address inequality that risks lagging (or always lagging) behind the widening rich/poor gap.
Author Malcolm Gladwell makes this incisive observation: “To the degree that Matthew effects amplify prior advantages and disadvantages, both the fortunes of the fortunate and the misfortunes of the unfortunate are unearned and undeserved”. I guess that is why Goh Keng Swee once told banker Wee Cho Yaw that he prefers to be born lucky than rich.
But, unearned or undeserved, nothing is stopping the rich from getting richer, with the poor getting poorer, almost by some social law of default, thanks to the ever-widening gap of inequality.
And this brings me to the point of my post: At a time like this, when everyone below a certain economic livelihood threshold is struggling, what signal are we sending to them when the people we have voted in are enjoying such huge salaries to the extent that they are able to pile it all up for themselves and their future generation?
I know this is a touchy subject, and I am not against reasonable pay. Yet, I believe that it has to be pegged more to the conscience of society, and less to the impulse of the market. Finding the right adaptive balance is the darnest task I know.
And I am also not blind to the different standards of living of different people. I recently read about an employee in the airline business who had suffered a 20% cut of his more than $20k monthly salary. That, to him, was quite disruptive as he has to sell his properties, dine out less, and go for some personal belt tightening measures.
But we must never forget that, for a cleaner, who has to pay for her children’s education and living expenses, that same 20% cut can turn her world upside down.
So, going back to the question, and when it comes to inequality, it is seriously not so much about whether we pay our ministers enough. I always believe that talent comes with a price. A fair society therefore requires that one’s pay justifies one’s talent or contribution.
But, tbh, when a minister’s sacrifices do not differ that much from the sacrifices of a social worker, a nurse or even a cleaner, I would no doubt still expect the former (minister) to be paid more than the latter because of their coveted talent.
Yet, at some point, especially during a crisis, where the majority is struggling to make ends meet, the “servants of the people, not masters” that PM Lee is talking about has to be such that one starts to review the justification of one’s pay that is pegged to the market, instead of pegging it to the heart/conscience of public service right?
The more philosophical question to this is, when is enough enough? And mind you, this applies not just to prosperity gospel preacher, but to politicians as well.
Let me end with a famous speech by LKY in Parliament in 1996, when he said that he felt very guilty of robbing his friend, Eddie Barker of $30 million had he stayed in Lee and Lee. ”Had he gone into business with my brother, he would have had easily $60 million”.
But, what is surprising is that Barker himself was bewildered by the high salary of ministers at $60k monthly, which was more than double the current salary at that time.
And at a social gathering at his home, with a group of Oxbridge graduates, Barker shared that “he did not understand the need for huge salaries.” He even told his good friend, Subhas Anandan, that as long as he got his “cigarettes and beer”, he would be fine (page 207, “EW Barker - The People’s Minister”).
I guess when you peg your worth to the market, and as you pile up your net worth with ever-higher standards of living, enough is seldom enough. But when you peg it to society’s conscience and to the heart of public service, you will experience what Barker had experienced in his decades of giving selflessly to the people wherever he is placed. And you will then be able to be inspired and contented with these words by the same man.
“Life is what you make of it. There are some who inherit wealth only to squander it away, while others make their fortune on their own efforts by dint of hard work, determination and perseverance.”
“But happiness is not necessarily associated with wealth. The important thing is to have a purpose in life, a goal to achieve and the satisfaction of achieving it.”
That about sums up a life worth living for. A life defined by purpose, perseverance and contentment.
No comments:
Post a Comment