The elephant in the living room

I don't mean this elephant:

Task of jumbo proportions, not for the squeamish
http://sewerserpent7.livejournal.com/#asset-sewerserpent7-528

I mean the Great Debate on Ministers' Salaries Part III.

It was debated to bits while I was overseas. Then when I was back, it was debated again. Like most if not all Singaporeans, I couldn't accept it at first. Then I did. Maybe it's because I know people and I'm not the envious sort. I've accepted it as necessary and I haven't really followed the news. There is no new arguments from either side. The only new twist is the juxtaposition with the debate a few weeks ago on the public assistance handouts. Tens of dollars vs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's been talked and blogged to death, but if I don't say anything about it, I may seem out of touch with reality. Or Singapore. Which some people claim is unreal.

I think most people can't accept paying Ministers higher salaries because there is some kind of envy, some kind of socialistic robin hood need to take from the rich to give to the poor. Some kind of idealistic self-delusion where they tell themselves, if I were in their shoes, I would NEVER do what they did, those selfish bastards.

It makes people feel good about themselves. Feel superior. Or maybe they just don't want the rich to get richer. They just want themselves to get richer.

It is an emotional issue and people confuse the issue, drag in irrelevancies, make non sequitur leaps of logic, confound the situation with unrelated matters, and make unwarranted comparisons.

For example, one argument and it's variant is that Ministers a) do not need that salary, b) do not deserve their salary, c) should not need that salary to serve, d) are not doing work that is worth that kind of money, e) are overpaid compared to other leaders who have much greater responsibility, and f) should not be benchmarked against the private sector because it doesn't matter who's up there, it's always the top people.

This argument misses the point completely. It's not so much about what the job of Minister pays. It's what else the person can make in other jobs. If you are a brilliant professional who can make $4m a year, why should you give up a lucrative career for $1.2m a year? or $1.8m? For the sheer joy of serving? Riiight.

Most Singaporeans will say, tell you what, why don't you play-play run the govt, don't bother me, I have to go make some real money. And if we get some cheap talents who don't make the grade, would the brilliant professional then decide to step up to the plate and serve? Well, he might. Or he might just go someplace else where he can do better business or make more money.

The Ministers' salaries have to be substantial enough so that good minds will weigh the "sacrifice" of foregoing their lucrative careers as not too much of a deterrent.

The problem is not that our current crop of ministers will leave if we don't up their pay. The problem is that the govt will have trouble recruiting potential new leaders if we don't.

So I say, pay them to attract new blood. Don't let Singapore become like NKF. T. T. Durai started with good intentions. Then he "lost the plot."

Pay them well upfront. So they don't have to wheel and deal and try to give their families a better life in unethical ways.