Emeritus' Trilogy: Ministerial Pay (Part III)

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.

Emeritus' Trilogy: Ministerial Pay (Part II)

It was a mixed-feeling kind of conversation between ESM Goh and Edwin Tong. 

The papers report it this way. 

"Mr Goh recalled their conversation: "He said, at this stage of his life, he has got a house, he has got a mother-in-law to support, a father-in-law to support, his own parents and so on, what should he do?

"So I asked him, "Edwin, what are you in politics for? He said, "Here to serve." So I said, "Well, you know, between $2 million and perhaps half a million, later on you hopefully become a full minister, $1 million, you have to decide which is more important."

Here's the part that tipped in favour of service for Edwin Tong.

"He said, "Yes, I will take it on." And he felt very strongly that he could do the job."

Mr Goh added: "We dare not pay ministers a good wage.""

FYI, Edwin Tong valiantly took a 75% cut in salary as a top-notch lawyer in the private sector to take up the position of Senior State Minister. His yearly income of $2m was slashed to a meagre half a mil a year. 

Now, this whole drama plays out the main dilemma of government in a democratic society plagued by widening social and economic inequality. 

It is the same problem that had vexed LKY. 

He summed it up aptly: "The problem for the government is: how do you keep a society united when that lower layer can never catch up?"

Some may say that the word "never" is harsh but it is necessary to frontload unembelished reality before ungrounded idealism. 

For LKY, communism or the populist redistribution of income by forced taxation or nationalisation is a form of massive, across-the-board demotivation. 

It is like a twisted form of Robbin Hood where the PM and his sherwood cabinet team take from the rich and give to the poor and then develop an entitlement class of the poor expecting to be fed regularly while the rich is plundered for their enterprise and industry. 

Not unexpectedly, this creates two layer of demotivation: the poor (entitlement mentality) and the rich (deprivation angst).

LKY puts it this way: "The fundamental issue is, we must not demotivated people. Once we demotivate them and they feel that it is an entitlement - 

"Society should look after me. I am born, you are the government, you have to look after me" - then we are in trouble."

LKY continued with this classic self-improvement 101: 

"You are born, the government has to provide conditions for good healthcare, good housing, good education. You must strive. What you make of yourself depends on you. We can't equalise everybody's results."

Now, at this point, this has to be said. Both LKY and Mr Goh are even more concerned about pacifying or appeasing the top. 

Since they are considered the main driver of the economy, the stallion (in the likes of Edwin Tong) that pulls the wagon of the hoi polloi forward, Mr Goh said: "If ministers are not paid well, "very, very mediocre" people will be ministers in the long run." Think about that (he said). Is it good for you, or is it worse for us in the end?""

Mr Goh even lamented that he tried unsuccessfully to persuade two highly paid private sector high fliers to join his government and stand in the 2015 GE. He said one earned $10m and the other $5m a year.

Lesson? One, but much to think about.

Let me just say that I empathise with Mr Goh's lamentation and money-for-talent dilemma. His pursuit of the millionaires in private sector to join government is undeniably an earnest attempt to strengthen the core team. It shows he has the country's interest at heart.

But I feel that if the two of them earning millions (way above a minister's pay) refused the offer of public service due mainly to a drastic change in annual pay (and for no other reasons - which I doubt), then it may not be a bad thing after all. 

Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, between serving with dignity and honor and serving for higher (or comparable) pay and wealth, I would rather my constituent leaders serve by virtue of intrinsic motivation, with dignity and honour, and if I may add, with heart and soul. 

So, if we lose out on the two highly paid private executives because the factor that tipped the scale as Mr Goh seems to imply is comparable pay, then we should not cry over spilled milk and instead look elsewhere for people who are prepared to put aside monetary incentives to serve with heart and soul. 

Let me clarify that the two (heart and monetarised incentive) are definitely not mutually exclusive, but the mix may risk an unnecessarily overladen heart when more complicated situation in government presents itself that demands one to make a choice between the two. 

In such a situation, there is no guarantee that one who enters public service mainly for money will be able to resist it (in one form or another) when he/ she is seriously tested. That is the risk one faces when extrinsic motivation is taking the lead over intrinsic motivation. 

On another note, taking from Mr Goh's cue, I really don't know whether we will get "very, very mediocre" people into government if we pay them less than a pay that is pegged to the top-tier earners in the private sector. 

I feel that we should not so quickly assume that money is the only motivation for public service.

While that is the general rule (or expectation) when one offers himself in the private sector, the motivation for public sector may very well be more naunced and layered than that simple equation of money means quality, or comparable pay means reliable leaders with character. 

That would go some way to explain Edwin Tong's reply when he said, "Yes, I will take it on" despite a drastic pay cut. Thereon, he would have to prove himself nevertheless, whether he is paid more or less. 

In any event, we should always be careful of misrecognition, that is, thinking that we are working on a set of principles (or that we are purely motivated by a set of trigger points) when in truth, or in reality, things, situations or human beings are a lot more complicated than that and we are actually working on another set of unacknowledged principles, because it is inconvenient to admit it. 

The misrecognition in Mr Goh's case may be found in this statement: "If ministers are not paid well, "very, very mediocre" people will be ministers in the long run". The set of principles? High pay. The result? Talent. The reverse? Low pay. The result? Mediocrity. 

Mm...

You see, the reality is, some will work for free or very little - just as long as they have fulfilled their economic responsibilities to their loved ones (quality uncompromised that is).

Others will work only if they are paid well, or paid comparable to what they are able to make or are making.

And still others will work if they are paid enough - and this is where the current struggle is with our current government. What is enough? 

While leaders like David Marshall and EW Barker would find it confounding that ministers should get such huge pay since public service calls for one to serve beyond money considerations, others may find that money is an unspoken but necessary prerequisite since times have changed. 

However, my only concern about changing times is that, along with pegging the ministerial pay to market rates to attract the best, other things have changed as well like the widening income inequality, the struggling and neglected middle class due to escalating prices of daily necessities, and the growing disillusionment of the majority over minor issues like teachers' carpark, the class divide, decreasing social mobility and the aging population that all inevitably adds up. 

Maybe, that is the real dilemma of government, that is, "how do you keep a society united when that lower layer feels strongly that they can never catch up?" and not so much that they can't. 

It is therefore ultimately a heart and soul issue, and not so much a strictly technocratic, narrowly economic and fiercely pragmatic one as implied by Mr Goh. Cheerz.

Emeritus' Trilogy: Ministerial Pay (Part I)

When the Independent SG published what ESM Goh said in a Q&A session recently, it was for me a walk down memory lane of a lesson in ruthless pragmatism. 

In other words, it was governance with a firm, tight grip on reality for me. 

Here is the extract.

"SM Goh had been responding to this question: “Can we have some sort of an elderly pensions fund? Perhaps, can I say, cut a bit on the defence? Or perhaps even from the ministers with million-dollar salaries?”

Sharing that he would have applauded the man who asked the question if he suggested that elderly pension could be funded by hiking the Goods and Services Tax (GST), ESM Goh allegedly responded:-

“Somebody must pay for the pension and you got it right. We’ll have to take it from somewhere else. If you had suggested we up GST by 2 per cent, I would have applauded you. Seriously. Because you’re taxing the whole society to support the older ones. But you did not."

Here is where ESM Goh threw down the gauntlet with no mincing of words about the competitive side of hiring the best in government:-

“But you said cut the defence. 1 per cent is enough. On top of that, you said cut ministers’ salaries. That’s very populist. I’m telling you the ministers are not paid enough. And down the road, we’re going to have a problem getting people to join the Government. Because civil servants now earn more than ministers. Are you aware of that?Surely, one must not misunderstand what he was trying to say."

Mm...let me just say that the part about him telling us that "the ministers are not paid enough" and the problem we will face as a nation when we can't get the best into government is not so much an elitist or money-minded position, but a fiercely practical one. 

It is often said that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, and that may have some valid application here?

Let's flesh out more on this pragmatic logic in attracting the best. ESM Goh continued:-

“And where do we get future office holders from? From the private sector? I tried for the last election. Two of them – one earning $5 million and one earning $10 million a month. To be minister for $1 million?

So where do you want to get your ministers from? From people who warn only $500,000 a year? You’re going to end up with very mediocre people who can’t even earn a million dollars outside. Is it good for you or is it worse for us?”

That's the whole context of it. You can't really fault ESM Goh for his stand and the arguments put forward to explain it in his way. 

Well, it should be noted that this stand is not out of line with his predecessor's mindset about equality - that is, it is essentially a myth. 

It is a myth to the extent that we expect there would not only be equality in opportunities but also equality in outcome. 

That's asking too much from the government - even one as technocratically flourishing as the PAP. 

Here is what LKY has to say about this myth:-

"Do you think you can create an equal society, as communists believed? After a while they stop believing in it. They pretend that it's equal society. But the whole society malfunctions. So Deng Xiaoping said: Some will get rich faster than others. Maybe he rest will get rich later. Proceed and open up. And he overrode all his old guard colleagues who were so deeply committed to an equal society."

Lesson? Just one.

Mm...I've come to believe that between the reality and the idealism, there is a gap that the government and her people operate. It is often called the hypocrisy gap, and LKY understood it intimately. 

LKY understood that those who depend on the votes of the people in a robust democracy will want to demonstrate compassion, identity and empathy with their plight and assure them that they will close the inequality gap during their tenure in office. 

But it takes one to retire from politics for good to see how incredulous that assurance is when the one-track competitive market driven goals to economic success that the government is bent on taking unfailingly keeps thwarting that goal (of closing the inequality gap) and its execution. 

ESM Goh's rebuttal above about ministerial pay (that it is not competitive enough) and LKY's correlation between the dream of equality and the history of communism's historical catastrophes under Stalin and Mao are examples enough of this hypocrisy gap that only retired politicians are able to see more clearly than the current politicians (who still depend on the people's votes) would want to admit so openly and defiantly. 

But having said all that, I still feel that this hypocrisy gap is not a natural phenomenon (arising out of forces beyond our control) but a man-made one. 

You can call it conspiracy theory or whatever, but I tend to see beyond this hypocrisy gap to something that can be mediated or resolved if we think outside of the capitalism box that has accounted for so much of our wealth accumulation to the least number of people and so little of the so-called greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

It is often said that after the collapse of Berlin Wall, communism is officially dead, buried and cremated. 

But in truth, it has taken another more resilient and rejuvenated form and it has never left us. Never left the people. Its ideal still resonates, even if its horrendous execution still sends chills down our spine.

The majority at the bottom and even the struggling middle class are collectively keeping the dream of equality alive, setting hope afloat for a more equal society where people are not differentiated by what they have so that the eyes could marvel and envy, but what is glowing within them that cannot be prized in the market system. 

Here I recall what a Marxist philosopher Max Horkheimer once said:-

"History's route lies across the sorrow and misery of individuals. There is a series of explanatory connections between these two facts, but no justificatory meaning."

Maybe that is what our government or ESM Goh is trying to do, that is, to explain to us the connections between two facts, that is, ministerial pay is not enough, and if it is enough, we will get the best in government. 

But, what the majority who are struggling are looking for is not "explanatory connections" but "justificatory meaning". 

That is, they are pining for some ideal that they can hold on to that promises a flourishing co-existence between the government and them that is meaningful, purposeful and mutually enriching. 

And mind you, that needs not end up a hypocrisy gap disguised by self-sabotaging feel-good promises or assurances from the well-endowed politicians eager to win our votes. 

It however can be one that is more humane, authentic and sincere, where actions speak louder than words, and where their policies are full of heart and soul, rather than one largely about dollar and sense, clean wages and self-discipline, and the spiel that ever increasing ministerial salaries will attract the best in government and nothing else will do. Cheerz.