While the Bill amends many Acts, I will focus on 2 sets of amendments – those concerning Criminal Procedure Code and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Criminal Procedure Code (CPC)
Clause 21 (a) to (c) of the Bill amends the CPC with respect to bail.

Clause 21 (b) of the Bill amends S 95(1)(a) to allow a court to consider whether to release an arrested person on bail in all cases except where the accused is charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

The provision, when amended, will allow a court to grant bail where an accused is charged with an offence which attracts imprisonment of 20 years or more, which the current provision does not allow. I support this amendment, as it will give a court the discretion to decide whether to grant bail in such cases. The court can then apply the usual principles in deciding whether to grant or deny bail to an accused, looking at factors such as the seriousness of the offence and punishment, the risk of the accused absconding and the risk of further offences being committed while he is released on bail.

This amendment in Clause 21 (b) also rectifies an issue which recently arose in the case of Mohamed Hisham bin Sapandi v PP [2011] 4 SLR 868. There, the prosecution and the defence had argued that the wording of the existing S 95(1)(a) was capable of two different interpretations, as the term “20 years or more” was ambiguous. In any event, the problematic clause will now been deleted.

Sir, since we are discussing S 95, there has been an issue surrounding this section which would be good to clarify in this debate.

S 95 (1) restricts the court in granting bail in 3 situations: first, where the accused is charged with an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment; secondly, where he is a proven flight risk and the court believes he will continue to be so; and thirdly, where is arrested or taken into custody under warrants issued under the Extradition Act.

The issue of whether these restrictions under S 95 (1) apply to only the Subordinate Courts or to the High Court as well arose in Mohamed Hisham’s case. This is because there is an unqualified provision in S 97 (1) of the CPC which allows the High Court to grant bail to any accused before it, or release him on personal bond, or to vary the amount or conditions of bail or bond required by a police officer or a Subordinate Court, as it thinks fit.

In Mohamed Hisham’s case, even the Deputy Public Prosecutors appeared to accept that the High Court’s power to grant or vary bail under S 97 was not fettered by S 95. This view was accepted by the High Court in Mohamed Hisham’s case. However, it was noted there that there had been an earlier, conflicting High Court decision in S Selvamsylvester v PP [2005] 4 SLR 409 which held that the High Court’s power to grant bail was subject to the restrictions in the equivalent sections of the former CPC.

As the High Court appears to be grappling with what Parliament’s intention is in enacting the bail provisions under the old and new CPC, could this Bill have included an amendment to clarify the position once and for all? Or would Minister assist at least to clarify what Parliament’s intention is on this issue?

Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA)
Under Clause 28 of the Bill, the Commissioner of Police may authorize any person or class of persons to possess truncheons, handcuffs or specified weapons or equipment in a public place, if the Commissioner deems it necessary and appropriate.

This amendment widens the already worrying S 22A of the Act, which allows the Commissioner to authorize persons in the private security industry to carry such items in public. The existing S 22A was inserted in Aug 2007 and at that Parliamentary debate, I raised my concern about giving private security personnel such items, when they did not have police powers, nor receive the same training. Some of these items are meant for use in physical confrontations with members of the public. As security officers generally have only citizen’s powers, which are limited, the risk of use of excessive force will arise. Should security officers become overzealous, or even act in good faith but cause injury to the public, will the citizen be left simply to sue the individual security officer and his employer?

In other countries, the accountability of private security officers for wrongful acts has been a big issue, and it is a matter of time I feel before this surfaces here.

Now, Clause 28 proposes to widen the provision even further. The amendment will allow the Commissioner of Police to include any person or class of persons to carry truncheons, handcuffs, or specified weapons and equipment. This new provision raises even more concerns.

I would like Minister to clarify which categories of people Commissioner has in mind for this provision, and what safeguards are in place to protect the public against excessive force or abuse.

Mr Speaker Sir, For a country with a voting population of only 2.1m citizens, Ministerial salaries in Singapore are by far, the highest in the world. It should therefore come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber that the debate surrounding ministerial salaries are also the most emotive anywhere in the world as well. In the minds of many citizens, Ministers cannot make mistakes. The connection is logical. If you pay top-dollar, you expect top performance.

Over the Christmas period, I took the opportunity to ask friends and relatives what they would consider to be a fair wage to pay an MP and Minister in Singapore. Although this was not a scientific exercise by any stretch, on average, the figure for an MP hovered around the $10,000 mark, while the total wage for a Minister, excluding his or her MP’s salary ranged from $30,000 to $50,000, bonuses included. As reinforced by the committee, with figures such as these, no Minister would need to worry about his ability to meet the financial needs of his family or have to face a drastic reduction in his standard of living.

Many who I spoke to were shocked that Ministers received a pension. If anything, public servants who have for the longest time deserved a pension are our Division 3 and 4 civil servants, some of whom draw a salary around the $1500 a month mark. But paradoxically, even years after the private sector removed this anachronism; the PAP government persisted in retaining it for their high flyers until the committee’s recommendations. Once again, the emotive reaction of Singaporeans is completely logical and understandable.

A few months ago, I asked via a PQ, the monetary amount each outgoing minister in the last cabinet could expect to receive in pension. The Prime Minister however gave an answer to another question, one that was not asked, instead explaining how pensions are calculated. The reluctance to reveal hard numbers provides yet another glimpse into the reasons behind the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to ministerial salaries. I can confidently say that this government will never release how much each retiring Minister received in pension, although I hope I will be proved wrong, especially since one PAP MP announced on Monday that Ministerial salaries are published. Well, following that logic we should expect pensions to be published as well.

Mr Speaker Sir, the political landscape today is anchored by expectations of significantly higher levels of transparency and accountability. To that end the committee must be commended for its decision to remove the very concept of a pension for ministers. In my mind, this has been an epochal recommendation made by Mr Gerard Ee’s committee and I hope Singaporeans duly credit them for it. They did not just remove pensions for Ministers – they have set a benchmark for good governance, accountability and transparency in public service. The Workers’ Party welcomes this development as the high-water mark of the committee’s recommendations.

It is in this spirit of good governance, transparency and accountability that the WP proposes a simple, straightforward formula by which to determine political salaries. Unlike as reported by the Straits Times today, specifically one headline which read “WP proposals on pay not that different”, the principles behind the Workers’ Party’s proposals differ significantly. And the reason for these differences were perhaps best iterated by DPM Teo on the first day of this debate – because it’s the principles behind the numbers that matter.

Where the committee could have done much better was to remove this concept of pegging Ministerial salaries to the top 1000 in Singapore. It also persisted in pegging MP salaries to a percentage of the Administrative Service super scale salary (this should read MR4 level; apology tendered in parliament for this oversight. Nonetheless the MR4 salary numbers remain very close to Administrative Service salary numbers), yet another vestige of elitism that should not be extended to the political realm. My erstwhile colleague Mr Chen Show Mao made the point about pegging political salaries with the rank and file of the civil service in his speech on the first day – at the MX9 level. But no PAP MP wanted to go there. It is apparent that the PAP are fine with pegging salaries to an elite core of individuals, many of whom discerning Singaporeans note, are also cultivated for PAP political office. In the mind of these discerning Singaporeans, the PAP Ministerial selection process is clear – you have been selected to be a minister first, before becoming an MP.

Two PAP MPs tried to address this Administrative Service elephant in the Committee’s report. One of them managed to scratch the surface of the issue – expectedly, that MP was the veritable conscience of the PAP – Ms Denise Phua. The other was Mr Lim Biow Chuan. If I heard Ms Phua correctly she wanted the Admin service salaries to be reduced, in line with the spirit of the recommendations of Mr Ee’s committee. Singaporeans should know why she felt that way. What’s so special about this elite core of 300-odd Admin Service scholars out of the 127,000 strong civil service, a mere 0.236% of all civil servants – and why is the MP salary pegged to a percentage of their salaries, and why not to ordinary civil servants?

Mr Speaker Sir, I started off my speech by referring to how much emotion political salaries generate in Singapore. The essence of the WP’s proposals – specifically the delinkage of MP salary to some percentage of the Admin Service and the top 1000 peg for Ministers, was precisely formulated by the Workers’ Party to remove this emotion from any debate on ministerial salaries – and to remove the overbearing odour of elitism from political office. And it is the Workers’ Party’s contention that when you remove the connection to elitism, you take emotive element out of the debate.

In retaining the unmistakable connection to the top 1000 and to the Administrative Service, the committee has missed an opportunity to fundamentally address the emotive reaction of Singaporeans to political salaries. In the Straits Times today, Review Editor Ms Chua Mui Hoong wrote (I quote) “that the issue of ministerial salaries will continue to draw heated disagreement. The formula will be tweaked again, and a future PM will have to stand up in Parliament and seek the support of MPs and Singaporeans for yet another round of changes.” (unquote). If this comes to pass, it would indeed be a most unfortunate eventuality. Like my party colleagues, I trawled the Hansard for a record of the previous debates on political salaries. Nothing this government has said over the last three days signalled a real shift in the mindset of how to peg political salaries. Substantively, it certainly looks like it is business as usual.

The Workers’ Party proposed the MP peg to the MX9 level – the starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants to the rank and file civil service, not the elite Administrative Service, where an officer at the age of 32 should expect to receive around $400,000 a year depending on bonuses. If the government pegs political salaries at the rank and file level, a level the average Singaporean can aspire to, you remind all political aspirants what it means to be a servant-leader, and you unmistakably inject substantive empathy into a nation’s political culture.

Ministerial salaries come next, and like many developed countries around the world you choose a suitable multiple that is politically acceptable to Singaporeans. We opine that Singaporeans can be persuaded by the reasoning behind our numbers. While they may be close to the committee’s proposal, the Workers’ Party certainly expects a reality check on the 13.5 months bonus a Minister can receive a figure that flies in the face of the committee’s commitment to clean salaries. For the record – standing to secure a bonus of half your salary can hardly be expressed as a clean salary. In monetary terms, it is akin to the perks some MPs in other countries get – like a car or housing allowance. With respect to the Committee, the WP’s proposal of a five month bonus is much cleaner and publically conscionable.

As many Singaporeans would understand by now, the Worker’s Party proposals take their cue from the rank and file of the civil service – ordinary, respectable civil servants who represent the spine and spirit of public service. One PAP MP was dissatisfied with the dental benefit of $70 the committee proposed for Ministers. But if the rank and file civil service is extended a $70 dental benefit, why should it be different for Ministers? Do they have golden teeth? If this government wants its Ministers to have more dental benefits, then extend the same privilege to our civil servants – for they serve the public too. This is much preferred instead of treating Ministers differently. They are MPs and public servants first.

The new normal does not call for superheroes as one PAP MP suggested; it calls for servant-leadership. Servant-leaders are those who back proposals that are akin to what mainstream Singaporeans can aspire to. As the WP numbers show, this is achievable and you can still attract high quality individuals to politics. But only if you do not limit your MPs to come from the top 10-20% richest Singaporeans, as PAP MP Ms Josephine Teo desires.

Some PAP MPs have gone about the shortcomings of the WP approach – to apply a multiple to MP salaries and thereby deduce a salary for Ministers. Others suggest it is arbitrary – and that you could decide to pay your Ministers by working backwards from a predetermined figure. I was a little surprised to hear this from MPs like Vikram Nair and Zaqy Mohammad because the reasoning behind the Committee’s proposals are no less arbitrary. As recommended by the committee, MPs allowance is pegged to 17.5% of an entry level admin service super scale admin service scholar (note earlier correction). Ministers get a 40% discount of the salaries of the top 1000. Isn’t that arbitrary? Why not 10% or 12.5% of entry level Admin Service superscalers or 50% discount for Ministers as opposed to 40%. Can’t you get to the figures you want by manipulating these percentages? But it leaves me to acknowledge the intellectual honesty of Mdm Halimah Yacob who noted that while the specific multiple for Ministerial salaries proposed by the Workers’ Party can be interpreted as arbitrary, so can the numbers and percentages contained in the committee’s recommendations.

The neutral may say, both the WP and PAP proposals are arbitrary and I think the intellectually honest in this chamber will be the first to raise their hands and say this is true. But the difference lies in the principles behind the WP’s proposal. We seek to persuade Singaporeans that political salaries ought to be underwritten by a key Workers’ Party philosophy – that public service is open to all Singaporeans. The privilege of being of service to your fellow countrymen is the attraction of being an MP. You are an MP first, before becoming a Minister. Public service in Singapore is for all Singaporeans, and opportunities to be a Minister should not be restricted or institutionalised to the few with silver spoons.

To conclude Mr Speaker, if human resource is indeed our most precious commodity as Mr Gan Thiam Poh has reasoned, then it is indeed pragmatic that we send the right signal to all Singaporeans and open the prospects of political service to all Singaporeans, not just the top 10-20%. The Prime Minister also alluded to the difficulty the PAP may face recruiting individuals to become Ministers if salaries are not competitive. With respect, I would urge the Prime Minister to leave some room to consider the possibility that perhaps it is not the salary, career or family circumstances that is the issue. On the contrary, another reason could be that in light of the new normal, talented people feel the PAP is no longer capable of hosting their aspirations for Singapore, and no salary can move them.

We in the Workers’ Party believe that choosing the appropriate benchmark is critical as an unmistakable signal is sent when the principles behind your salary peg is at a level the average Singaporean can empathise with and aspire to. In doing so, we believe that the emotions that have justifiably bedevilled the debate on political salaries over the decades, will finally be assuaged. I may not have convinced this House, but I certainly hope to have convinced Singaporeans that while the final numbers behind the PAP and WP recommendations may not be world’s apart, the principles behind them most certainly are.

Mr Speaker, I oppose the principles behind the salary benchmarks chosen by the committee, and therefore I oppose the motion.

Speaker Sir,

I wish to express my concern that this government is still pushing the notion that Singapore needs to pay the highest political salaries in the developed world to ensure an honest government and attract talented individual to serve the people.

Are we sending the right message to the next generation that our top leadership may not function at the desired level if the ministerial salaries are not benchmarked against the highest income earners in Singapore?

Do we really believe our top leaders will be less capable, less honest, and less committed if their political pay is not benchmarked against those top 1,000 private sector earners?

We have been warned that the consequence of not paying top dollar to secure the services of future leaders is an incompetent and corrupt government. Can this house seriously believe we can build an honest government and prevent corruption simply by paying millions of dollars to our ministers?

If a minister has a character flaw lurking inside him, can a million dollar salary be the cure? How many members in this house will have second thoughts about serving the people if your salary is not benchmarked against top earners in Singapore?

The DPM has said yesterday that there is no right answer to this complex issue of determining public office salaries. He has also said it is all a judgment call.

But the message we sent in this judgment call is important for the next generation. We certainly do not want to encourage and inspire the wrong people to enter politics.

This brings me to my views on our human capital and the values we want to inculcate in our country.

Yes, we are a small country with a small citizen population and we operate in an open economy. While our talent pool is naturally limited, the people’s will to succeed is definitely not. This nation was started with less than 2 million people. Our forefathers had walked hand-in-hand with first generation leaders to build this nation and they did well.

Now that we have added over a million more citizens, is our will to succeed a lot less now than when we first started? Have we left our values so far behind that we are beginning to believe that the best incentive to attract people to step forward to serve the country is money?

In my experience as a counsellor, people who are passionate about serving the community do not quantify their sacrifice in dollars and cents. Likewise, people of the right calibre will not be deterred from stepping forward to lead the country even if they have to take a pay cut in the process.

It is a given that the ethos of political service encompasses a fair amount of sacrifice. To think that we can quantify that sacrifice by a 40 per cent discount to the median income of the top 1,000 earners in the revised salary benchmark for ministers may be bordering on insult to the many selfless people who are serving the community at meagre wages.

Can we put a value on passion, ethic, and sacrifice? Is the 40 per cent discount in the revised pay formula a sacrifice on the part of the ministers? Is there even a sacrifice to begin with when some of these potential talents do not even feature in the list of top 1,000 earners in Singapore before they went into politics?

What kind of values do we wish to inculcate in the next generation?

This is precisely why the Workers’ Party is advocating a different approach to determining the benchmark for political salaries rather than starting the benchmark at the medium income of the top 1,000 earners. The rationale is simple. Not everything is about money.

During the debate on the President’s Address last October, there was a call to build an inclusive society. The proposal by the Workers Party takes into consideration this notion. We call for a ‘whole of government, people-up’ approach in pegging the salaries of Ministers and MPs to the salaries of senior executives in the civil service.
The civil service salary is competitively pegged to general market conditions. Any market adjustment made to this benchmark, positive or negative, will be reflected in the political salary. This approach, I believe, has the hallmark of an inclusive society as compared to the proposal to peg ministerial salary to the top 1,000 earners.
By aligning the political salary structure to the civil service, the empathy gap between our political leaders and the general population will narrow over time. As elected leaders, we should lead by example in the effort to build an inclusive society.
As this time, I want to address the points brought up by some members of this house yesterday.
MP Mr Inderjit Singh has highlighted that unlike political leaders in UK, our elected members here are not given additional perks on top of our salary. We cannot compare apple to orange. Looking at the geographical size of United Kingdom, we can probably understand why political leaders there are given such perks like housing, a chauffeured driven car, meals and even laundry allowance. We do not need to travel long distance and spend time away from our family to attend parliament sittings but our UK counterparts do.
The Workers Party has studied and deliberated on the issue of perks and other forms of allowances which are not implemented here. This is why we propose to peg the salary of an entry minister at 5 times the salary of an MP. This multiple is more than what is being practised in some of the countries we surveyed which ranges from 1.2 to 4.6 times.
I share the same view with Member Ms Dennis Phua about perception; that a glass can be seen as either half empty or half full. I too believe there is no right answer to the formula put up by the review committee.
However, we need to remind ourselves that we are servants of the people. We need to remind ourselves to be humble, compassionate and sincere. The ‘whole of government, people-up’ approach to benchmarking political salary as proposed by the Workers’ Party is a step to building that emotional bond with the people we serve. It is a step to creating an inclusive society. It is also a step to inculcating good values for our future generation.
Sir, while we want to attract people of the right calibre to serve, we must also ensure we attract people of the right values to lead this nation.

While we cannot leave the recruitment and development of leaders to chance, we certainly cannot entrench the belief that paying high salaries is the primary way to get competent people to enter politics.

For many of us, our journey to this august chamber began with a dream to build a better Singapore for all. This journey is certainly not going to end just because we are not benchmarked against the highest wage earners in Singapore.

Mr Speaker Sir, Malay

Saya bersependapat dengan rakan saya Encik Show Mao bahawa langkah pengurangkan jumlah gaji para menteri serta pemimpin-pemimpin politik dialu-alukan namun formula yang di sarankan oleh Jawatankuasa Semakan Gaji Menteri kurang tepat atau memuaskan.
Saranan yang diketengahkan oleh jawatankuasa ini iaitu menggunakan pendapatan median 1,000 warga Singapura berpendapatan tertinggi, dengan diskaun 40 peratus, masih bersifat “Top Down” atau pendekatan dari atas ke bawah. Kami berpendapat, pendekatan ini kurang melambangkan sifat inklusif dan prihatin yang ingin diketengahkan oleh pihak pemerintah. Kami percaya pendekatan sebegini boleh melahirkan jurang perbezaan emosi diantara para pemimpin politik dan masyarakat umum Singapura.
Kami akui bahawa adalah penting bagi Singapura diterajui oleh pemimpin politik yang mempunyai kelayakkan serta kemahiran yang baik dan sesuai. Namun, faktor gaji tidak seharusnya dijadikan sebagai faktor induk untuk menarik individu-individu yang berkebolehan. Penglibatan dalam perkhidmatan politik harus lahir dari keikhlasan hati untuk menyumbang dan berbakti kepada masyarakat. Justeru, kami percaya formula atau ukur kayu yang digunakan bagi gaji menteri harus berunsurkan faktor kemasyarakatan serta bersifat inklusif. Kami cadangkan agar pendekatan “whole-of government” atau pendekatan dari bawah ke atas digunakan.

Prinsip serta objektif perkhidmatan politik adalah seiras dengan prinsip dan objektif perkhidmatan awam. Diatas persamaan ini, kami menyarankan agar gaji menteri didasarkan kepada elaun Ahli parlimen, dimana elaun Ahli parlimen pula harus berdasarkan kepada gaji pegawai eksekutif kanan dalam perkhidmatan awam. Di Singapura, gaji perkhidmatan awam berpandukan kepada kondisi pasaran am pekerjaan atau ‘general market condition’. Melalui saranan ini, gaji menteri serta gaji pemimpin-pemimpin politik akan melalui bersama keadaan pasang-surut yang berlaku kepada lebih ramai masyarakat Singapura, bukan setakat terikat kepada golongan 1,000 warga Singapura berpendapatan tertinggi. Ini sesuai dengan seperti pepatah ‘ berat sama dipikul, ringan sama dijinjing’.

Sebelum mengakhiri ucapan ini, saya ingin mengingatkan terutama sekali diri saya sendiri serta pemimpin-pemimpin di dalam dewan ini bahawa posisi kepimpinan yang kita pegang ini adalah satu amanah yang diberikan oleh rakyat. Dalam menjalankan amanah ini haruslah berlandaskan jiwa kemasyarakatan, ikhlas serta rendah diri. Ambillah ikhtibar dari pemimpin-pemimpin unggul dunia serta selamilah dan jiwailah prinsip-prinsip peganggan pemimpin-pemimpin ini. Antara contoh-contoh pemimpin yang unggul,(1) Encik Sun Yat Sen, seorang yang mengorbankan kerjaya beliau sebagai seorang doktor demi untuk menumpukan usaha dalam merubah nasib rakyat Cina. Beliau juga tidak kisah atau hirau untuk melepaskan jawatan sebagai pemimpin demi untuk kebaikan rakyat. (2) Encik Mahatma Gandhi, seorang yang banyak berkorban jiwa raga untuk rakyat India. Kelebihan beliau tidak perlu saya sebutkan. (3) Encik Omar Al-Khattab, seorang pemimpin unggul di semenanjung tanah arab yang amat terkenal akan kerendahan hati beliau serta sifat mendahulukan rakyat. Beliau adalah seorang pemimpin yang memilih untuk tidak mempunyai singgahsana atau istana. Beliau lebih selesa menjalani kondisi kehidupan sama seperti rakyat biasa kerana sifat kesepaduan beliau yang tinggi serta demi menjiwai kehidupan rakyat. Beliau juga pernah menolak saranan agar anak beliau mengambil alih kepimpinan setelah ketiadaan beliau dengan keras atas alasan cukup lah hanya seorang sahaja ahli dari keluarganya menjadi pemimpin.

Contoh yang boleh diambil daripada pemimpin-pemimpin yang sedemikian ialah prinsip yang dipegang dan sifat kepimpinan yang ditunjukkan, sehinggakan pemimpin-pemimpin seperti ini berjaya membuat perubahan yang besar serta mendatangkan manfaat yang teramat kepada rakyat yang dipimpin.

Speaker sir, Dengan ini saya menolak akan usulan yang diketengahkan oleh Jawatankuasa Semakan Gaji Menteri kerana saya berpandangan formula yang disarankan didalam usulan ini, masih ada kekurangan dari aspek untuk menyemarakkan sifat-sifat inklusif dan keprihatinan dalam masyarakat Singapura.
Thank you Sir.

Mr Speaker Sir, my party colleagues have touched on many aspects of the proposal. I wish to highlight the part that I have the biggest concern with. It is the way a minister’s pay is pegged to the top 1,000 Singaporean earners.

The salary review committee was given the terms of reference by the Prime Minister to (quote) “take into account salaries of comparable jobs in the private sector and also other reference points such as the general wage levels in Singapore” (unquote).

The assumption this government began with is that political talent is synonomous with career success; that office holders must have comparable pay with top private sector earners. So the committee arrived at the median income of the top 1,000 earners, less a 40% discount to (quote) “signify the ethos and sacrifice that comes with political service” (unquote). It implies that our political office holders must come from this pool, or that their ability and job scope is equivalent to the top 0.06% of the working Singaporean population.

This sentiment has indeed been expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and by various members over the past two days.

We have constantly used this mindset since 1994, when ministers’ pay was first revamped to tie it to the that of the top earners in the private sector. While the committee’s new formula is better than that of the previous one which had been narrowly tied with only the top eight earners in six professions, it is nevertheless still an elist thinking that only those who are top in their professional careers can make it to hold political office.

Running a company well is different from being able to run a country. Perhaps the government has treated running this country too much like running a business that we have often been referred to as Singapore Inc. So we also tie political work to that of running a very big company. I believe this is a flawed model.

In constantly drumming this message since 1994, we have created an expectation amongst potential political office holders that political office is a career progression for them, and that reaching a minister’s position is like reaching the pinnacle of one’s career.

It also creates an expectation amongst identified potential office holders that they need a safe route to parachute into parliament or they would not risk their career. This has made Singapore politics uniquely Singapore. It is a model of politics that despite years of attempts to justify and fine-tune, many have yet to accept. I for one, do not accept this model of politics.

I feel we have over commercialised the nature of running this country. We need to constantly remind ourselves that we have been elected by the people into this House. It is totally different from being headhunted to become a hired top management of a company. We should never forget it is a noble calling to serve the public.

I like to ask, what aspires a person to take the difficult route of politics?

Four years ago I read with interest about how President Obama as a young student in an Indonesian school, stated that his ambition was to be the President of the United States. It was a noble aspiration for a child; an almost impossible ambition given his family background and then living half the globe away from America. Why would he have such an aspiration?

As a child growing up in post independent Singapore, I have been influenced by several of our first generation leaders whom I had clearly seen have made lots of personal sacrifices and have made great improvements to the country by what they did.

I wonder what would aspire our next generation to become future ministers and the future Prime Minister. I certainly hope it will not be for career progression.

I share the Prime Minister’s concern that Singapore needs good and high ability people to protect what we have. We have often heard that Singapore does not have enough talent for two teams. I do not agree with this thinking.  I have more confidence in our people.

During the debate on the Presidential Address, I had called for political education in schools. It is to strengthen the knowledge of our youths in the functioning of parliament and of the government. I believe it is important that we instill this sense of public service and politcal awareness in our youths to give them a better understanding of issues important to our country. We should aim to create aspiring future politicians who will strongly believe in the importance of leading the nation, and that they wish to play a part in it.

Perhaps it is also how we constantly look for political talent from amongst a narrow pool of top career performers that has perpetuated lack of interest in political careers amongst the general population. I believe we have been talent ponding for too long, searching from a small pond for people that fit as career elites. We should instead talent flood with people from all walks of life.

The salary review committee describes the 40% discount as a sacrifice for political service. I do not like the word “sacrifice”, a term that has been used by various members throughout the past 2 days. Being a politician should be an aspiration and an honour. It is the nature of politics all over the world that there will be public scrutiny; there will be challenges balancing family and work; and there will be set-backs such as electoral loss. The reluctant will deem these as sacrifice. Those who aspire to lead will welcome these as challenges to be overcome.

Singaporeans do not expect politicians to lead a spartan life with a religious calling. I believe Singapore politics has been more than fair to our political office holders in the past two decades. Even with the levels proposed by the Workers’ Party, they can lead very dignified lives.

We sometimes hear examples of former US and UK political leaders earning a lot after retirement. I think life has also been fair to our political office holders after retirement. We can see that retiring ministers are sought after by our government linked companies and some by multinationals. I believe the experience they have gained while in office have increased their market value.

Several members have said that the Workers’ Party’s proposal supports the level of salaries proposed by the committee, just because we happen to arrive at roughly the same basic monthly salary level for an entry level minister. The differences are several, and important:

(1) We start with the allowance for a member of parliament, because the minister is firstly a member of parliament. It is a reminder that we are elected by the people, not selected by a powerful committee to become ministers.

(2) The base salary for entry-grade senior civil servants at MX9 grade in less subjected to fluctuation compared with incomes at the 500th and 501st top income earners, which is the median of the top 100 earners . Over time, by comparing with the top, we could again see the salaries of ministers rising faster than are acceptable to Singaporeans.

(3) We oppose the huge bonus payout. Again, I like to stress that while we like Singapore to be well run, Singapore is not just another very large company. As an entrepreneur, Mr Inderjit Singh is acceptable with huge bonuses of 13.5 months. That may be the practice of some very generous private companies. Politically, it is unheard of and unacceptable to the electorate. The bonus for any political party, comes at the ballot boxes.

I like to thank the Prime Minister for agreeing that the Workers’ Party pay formula works out to less than that of the review committee’s. I recommend that Mr Vikram Nair and Madam Halimah check with the Prime Minister how he arrived at the calculations.

In our computation, the benchmark point annual salary for an entry level minister with 13th month and 2.5 months bonus is $852,500, compared with $1.1 million as recommended by the committee. This is a 46% cut from 2010 annual pay. Furthermore, a portion of the bonus is deferred into a bonus bank. Under our proposal, the Prime Minister with 13th month and 2.5 months bonus will receive $1,534,500, compared with the recommended $2.2 million. This is a 50% cut from 2010 annual pay.

Before I conclude, I like to address a point that Mr Vikram Nair raised. Over the past 2 days, he had harped on what we have contributed to Gerald Ee’s committee. With the permission of my colleague Gerald Giam, I like to share that Gerald Giam had spent more than 2 hours with the review committee. During the meeting, he had shared the deferred bonus, measuring by KPIs and our benchmarking method, which are now contained in our proposal. We have no need to share everything with the committee. I wonder how many hours Mr Vikram spent with the committee.

Mr Vikram has said that by opposing the motion, we are supporting the 2010 pay levels. The parliament is the platform to debate the salary review and to come up with alternatives, which is what we are doing. I wonder if Mr Vikram Nair expects us to simply rubber stamp the review committee’s proposal.

In conclusion, the annual levels we have proposed are not the same as that of the reveiw committee’s. More fundamentally, we object to the principles used to set the benchmark for ministerial salaries. Therefore, I oppose the motion.

Mr Speaker Sir,

In response to our Prime Minister, honorable members Mr Vikam Nair, Mdm Halimah and for the benefit for all, I shall repeat The Workers’ Party position on this debate.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse the white paper “Salaries for A capable and Committed Government”. We reject the white paper as the basis for setting salaries of the political appointment holders because we are of the view that the formula used to derive the benchmark for Ministerial salaries is flawed.

The basis of setting salaries benchmark based on the top 1000 private sector income earners is unsound. The outcome of the formula based on the salaries benchmark could potentially result in political appointment holders’ salaries become outliers to the general wage level over time.

On the surface, the fixed monthly pay out may between the WP & the White paper position may seem to differ little at this point of time. Yet it is a well known fact that the top earners’ rate of income rise will rise faster than that of ordinary Singaporeans, over time.

Even though the entry level benchmark for the MR4 is $55,000 now. If it is pegged to the top 1000 earners, we have estimated that it will increase by 51% by 2020. Under our WP formulae, our estimate is that the rate of increase will be about 41%, a more modest rate.

Also for bonuses, the committee’s recommended maximum bonus is 13.5 months. Whereas for the WP, we recommend not more than 5.5 months.

This means in a typical bonus scenario – the committee’s proposed pay cut benchmarked against 2010 levels for MP, Entry Grade Minister and Prime Minister would be just 3%, 31% and 28%. WP’s proposed cuts would have been more substantial at 28%, 46% and 50%.

In a maximum bonus scenario – the committee’s proposed pay cut benchmarked against 2010 levels for MP, Entry Grade Minister and Prime Minister would be merely 3%, 8% and 5%. Compare this toWP’s proposed cuts would have been consistently substantial at 28%, 37% and 42%.

The WP’s proposed cuts in the MP allowance and Ministerial salary would result in savings of about $21 million in a conservative estimate of the typical bonus scenario. The savings could be then be redirected to fund aids to our needy and elderly.

Mr Speaker Sir, in Mandarin

议长先生 ，

我的工人党国会同僚已经阐述了我党对政治职位薪金检讨委员会报告书的看法, 并提出建议；他们也对部长薪金的推算方式和其细节做了详细的说明。

我则将集中讨论，在决定政治职位的薪金数额时，政府应该遵从什么原则，以及如何向人民负责。我也会建议我们应该制订怎样的薪金检讨制度和国会的监督，以确保政府在以后要决定政治职位的薪金时，持续对人民负责。

大家都知道，我国的政治体制是采纳英国”西敏寺” (Westminster)政府的制度。薪金检讨委员会报告书中也提及在”西敏寺” 政府的制度下，属于行政体制的部长， 他们除了领取薪金，也应该享有国会议员的津贴。 “西敏寺” 的政治体系以司法、立法和行政－也就是政府，三权分立为原则。国会的立法主权则是国家的最高权力机构。换言之，属于行政体制的部长所提出的动议和政策，必须经过立法机构－即是国会－的讨论和决议後才决定。

我们也都明白国会议员是各个选区选民所推选出来的代表。受了人民的委任，就得对人民负责。新加坡的立法机构和许多国家的结构不同，我们没有上议院可发挥另外的监督和平衡作用。行政体系的成员都来自立法体系，部长和总理都首先成为议员，然后才受委任成为部长 。所以，我认为我们立法体系的国会应该对政府行政机能有所制衡。总理在第十二届国会辩论总统施政方针的演讲中也说：“政府对国会负责，我们欢迎议员提出各种尖锐的问题，在国会里进行辩论。”

此外，我认为，政府的透明度也很重要，要有理性的辩论和有效的公众问责的制度，需要资讯公开。因此，公布政治领导人所获得的薪金应该是合理的要求。

[Mr Speaker Sir, I will continue the rest of my speech in English]

This is especially so given that the taxpayer pays for the salaries of our political leaders. Therefore how much they are paid and the process of how their pay is determined has to be open, transparent, and accessible to the general public. Members throughout the course of this debate also brought up these principles. Indeed the committee report also mentions on many occasions that transparency and accountability to the public is key in their determination of political compensation. This was also the guiding principle under which the Committee recommended a clean wage.

These principles are in line with practices common to the dozen countries and territories in our survey that my colleagues have already mentioned. Only with transparency and meaningful information available can Singaporeans be — and remain — convinced that changes to the pay of our political leaders are not undertaken solely to advance their material interests, and any changes must first be and always should remain respectful of the costs borne by taxpayers.

WP’s Proposals
Therefore we have three proposals to ensure that the twin towers of accountability and transparency are enhanced in the political compensation process.

FIRST, we call for an independent commission to be appointed each time the Prime Minister seeks to change the terms by which compensation is determined.

SECOND, that the findings of the independent commission be always made subject to debate and also approval of the Legislature.

THIRD, a complete list of political salaries should be published on an annual basis.

Keeping The Committee Independent
Taking each point in turn, we note that the committee has recommended that an independent Committee should be formed every five years to review the salary framework. The Prime Minister would determine the members of the Committee.

We would like to see this taken one step further. We think that it is important that an independent (by which I mean non-partisan) commission free from executive direction be appointed each time any changes to the formula for political compensation is sought by the Prime Minister. This is in line with practices in many jurisdictions. I will return to a detailed analysis of the practices in some of these countries later.

The Importance of Parliamentary Sovereignty
It is also not enough that such a committee is formed each time changes are proposed. The committee must be accountable to and take directions from Parliament. To response to Vikram’s point on WP’s contributions to this debate. I would like to reiterate that ‘all roads lead to Parliament’, and this is most true here. The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is of utmost importance: the report should be published to Parliament and thus to the public — not first for the Prime Minister’s eyes only, and certainly not first to a ruling-party caucus.

The findings of the independent commission must EACH TIME be subject to debate, modification and approval by Parliament.

As the Committee mentioned a Westminster system, we should take a look at some of the systems that evolved from a Westminster system of parliament.

In Australia, there is an independent Remuneration Tribunal which has three members appointed by the Governor-General. Its determinations are subject to Parliamentary oversight.

In Canada, a commission to review the salaries of Parliamentarians is formed within 2 months after each general election. The report of the Commission must be published within 6 months of its formation, and the report must be tabled in Parliament for debate and approval.

Finally, in the UK itself, in response to our Prime Minister, while it is true that a widespread abuse of expenses by MPs was uncovered in 2009, like all good leaders, politicians in the UK learnt lessons and sought to improve. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 was passed by the Westminster Parliament to reform the way MP expenses were dealt with, and to increase the transparency and accountability of the process in order to ensure that such an issue would not recur in the future. There is also a Senior Salary Review Board, which is an independent body that advises on the pay and benefits due to politicians. Because all of this is regulated by statute, Parliament ultimately retains oversight.

We propose that all reports from the committee should always be open to public scrutiny via the legislative process. Citizens can give their thoughts and feedback on it to their MPs — who are their elected representatives. Such public scrutiny would increase transparency and enhance public trust in the procedural rigour of determining political pay. It would also reinforce the position of the Legislature as the one of the gatekeepers for the nation’s finances. I would also like to emphasise that seeking public feedback before the report is published, is not the same as subjecting the report to public scrutiny via the legislative process before it is debated, amended if necessary, and finally approved by Parliament.

Upholding Transparency
Finally, I would like to bring us back to the committee’s proposal that we maintain a ‘clean wage’ for political salaries in Singapore, particularly to ensure transparency and accountability to the public. My colleagues have already spoken on how we think that a whole-of-government approach should be taken when determining a set of goals and bonuses for our political leaders. I will instead focus on the criteria to which we think transparency should be upheld.

We note the list of salaries published in the report, and it is a step in the right direction. Our proposal is however, that a list of political salaries should be published ON AN ANNUAL BASIS in the Government Gazette and/or on the Parliamentary website. There should also be a disclosure of the amounts of national bonuses paid to office-bearers. The list should also clearly state which categories the national bonuses relate to. This will be in line with the ‘clean wage’ principle.

Coming back to the three Westminster countries I spoke of before, all three publish detailed lists relating to political pay. While it is true that each country has a different system of remuneration, with a series of allowances and expenses, we are still able to find a common thread running through these systems. That is, a thread of transparency.

In Canada, one is able to easily retrieve information sorted by year on the amount of compensation each office-bearer is paid. Car, rent and other forms of salary and allowances are clearly laid out in one website.

For Australia, this information is available from the Remuneration Tribunal’s website. A series of annual reports from the Tribunal lay out the salaries, allowances and entitlements of each MP and office-holder.

The UK has in the last couple of years increased the scrutiny and transparency standards in relation to political pay. A full list of salaries and allowances for all office holders is available on the UK Parliament’s website.

The UK Parliament also recently set up a new independent body — the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority– to ensure that there is rigorous regulation of and oversight over MP’s expenses. With a few mouse-clicks, a complete list of all expenses claimed for each individual MP is downloadable from the website. Expenses are published on a bi-monthly basis.

Regardless of how the compensation of political leaders are determined by these countries, the bottom-line is that we have stringent disclosure rules relating to the use of taxpayer funds relating to the compensation of political leaders. It is this level of transparency that we are holding up to be the gold international standard. It should be the standard to which Singapore should hold itself up against.

The benefits to this approach are many-fold. First, it would help to ensure that misleading, speculative information is not circulated in the public domain about how much our leaders are paid. Second, this will keep lawmakers accountable to the electorate in respect of their compensation throughout their entire 5-year term in office, not just at the ballot box. Third, an annual publication of salaries with discloseable national bonuses will allow Singaporeans to be able to see in the, then-and-now how their leaders have performed, and how the pay of their leaders is tied to the fortunes of the nation.

Throughout the course of this debate, we have heard several members draw comparisons with other countries, which may not score very highly in terms of transparency and accountability of their political systems. Instead of using these countries as examples of how Singapore is different, is exceptional or is better than them, I think that we should instead be focusing on learning from them. We should use their experience, and add to it the rigorous standards from well-governed jurisdictions, in our quest to ensure our system is robustly and proportionately answerable to our people.

Conclusion
I would like to end by saying that we have a well-informed, intelligent electorate whom I trust will be able to draw their own sensible conclusions from meaningful data made available to them. Singaporeans are not clamouring to know how much the net worth of politicians are, but instead their chief motivation is to ensure that their wages are both fair and commensurate to the performance of their Government. And Singaporeans have a right to know how their leaders are being compensated — and rewarded — out of taxpayer monies. We in this house must have faith in our people that if we follow the proposals above to improve transparency of political pay, we will come out stronger for it, as a nation.

Above all, I think we are all in agreement that lawmakers should have a strong sense of responsibility, accountability and service towards all Singaporeans, and should work towards our common goal for our country to have an enhanced sense of inclusivity and sensitivity. What better means to start this than in a First-World Parliament?

Thank you.

Mr Speaker,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate.

Like my honourable colleague, Mr Chen Show Mao, I believe that the White Paper’s approach of benchmarking Ministerial salaries to the top income earners is fundamentally flawed.

The proposed benchmark pegs entry-level Ministers’ salary to three-fifths of the median income of the 1,000 highest earning Singaporeans. This group represents the top 0.06%¹ of Singaporean income earners. It presents no significant shift from the previous 2/3 M48 formula, which pegged Ministers’ salary to two-thirds of the median among a small group of 48 professionals, comprising top bankers, lawyers, MNC chiefs and others.

This new formula still benchmarks Ministers’ salary against the richest of the rich, reflecting an approach that appears to be based on a number of questionable assumptions:

Firstly, it assumes that Ministerial talents should be first looked for among the highest income earners. The Paper states that the benchmark “reflect(s) the calibre of the people which Singapore needs for good government”.

Secondly, it expects most Ministers will be parachuted in from the top echelons of the private sector, rather than going through the paces of first being elected as MPs, gaining experience on the ground, before being promoted to junior ministers and finally full Ministers.

Thirdly, it assumes that potential Ministers are often reluctant politicians, who consider entering politics to be a sacrifice and a burden, rather than a privilege to serve the nation, and they therefore need to be coaxed with monetary incentives before stepping forward.

I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his explanation during his speech earlier. He was concerned that if we drastically reduce Ministerial salaries, it might shrink the potential pool of talents to draw from.

Mr Speaker, selecting political leaders is not a game of chance. It is most important that we are able to identify and recruit good leaders. The goal should not be to enlarge the pool of people to draw from.

In fact, by filtering out individuals who are—to put it bluntly—in it for the money, we could actually streamline the process of identifying capable and passionate political leaders who can take our nation forward.

The DPM also expressed concern that if potential Ministers waited 10 to 15 years before entering politics, we might miss them in their prime years.

I would like to suggest that people who are truly passionate about serving Singapore in the political arena will make the necessary financial plans and adjust their future financial commitments to fit the salary they will be receiving.

Mr Speaker, Mr Chen Show Mao has already articulated the Workers’ Party’s proposed salary benchmark. I would now like to focus in more detail on the bonuses proposed in the Paper and what the Workers’ Party views as a more appropriate way of structuring the variable pay of political appointment holders.

There are several components of the variable pay of Ministers in the proposed framework: A new National Bonus, an individual Performance Bonus, an Annual Variable Component (AVC) and a Special Variable Payment.

Purpose of bonuses
With the new bonus framework, Ministers can expect to get 7 months’ bonus as part of their “normal” compensation package, and 13.5 months or more in an exceptional year. The latter will more than double their already high base salary.

Sir, the purpose of a bonus is to provide an extrinsic motivation for a worker to perform well on the job, especially when his or her base salary is not high.

However, entry-level Ministers’ base salary of $55,000 a month already puts them among the highest wage earners in Singapore, so there is little reason why it needs to be supplemented by such a large bonus.

More importantly, we need to ask whether our Ministers are the type of people who need such huge bonuses to motivate them to perform well. Did they not all claim to have entered politics to serve the people?

I am hopeful that the honourable Members who hold political office will still be motivated to serve the people of Singapore even without such large bonuses.

Even if our Ministers need more than just intrinsic motivators to perform well, in a properly functioning democracy with a First World Parliament, there should be sufficient extrinsic motivators to spur their performance. These include scrutiny by Members of Parliament, the media, civil society and the public at large.

Of course, the most important motivator for the Ministers is the need to convince voters to re-elect them during the General Elections.

Bonus quantum
I recognise that the bonuses and allowances have been reduced from as high as 26.5 months under the previous framework.

However, the proposed bonuses are still excessive. Such large bonuses are usually seen only among senior executives of large corporations, which of course are the very people the Paper proposes to benchmark Ministers’ salaries against.

In fact, bonuses for political leaders are still largely unheard of in the rest of the developed world. Among the 12 well-governed countries and territories that the Workers’ Party studied, we have found so far that only one country—Japan—makes annual bonus payments to its Ministers.

Japan’s prime minister received a bonus of just 2.6 months in 2011².

I also disagree with the approach of paying out bonuses of as high as 7 months for simply meeting targets.

Even in the private sector, 7-month bonuses are generally only paid when both the employee and the company far exceed their targets.

In other words, it is an additional payment for doing much better than expected. It is not a payment for just meeting the expectations of their job—that is what their basic wage is for.

Last year, workers in Singapore got an average of just over 2 months of variable bonus³ , while our political leaders are set to receive 7 to 13 months of bonus, on top of their already high base salary.

This can only serve to accentuate the empathy gap between the Government and the people.

To bring bonuses down to a more acceptable level, I propose that the total variable component should not exceed 5 months, even in a very good year. If all targets are just met, the payment should be about 3 months. This is in addition to their 13th month Annual Wage Supplement.

To encourage a Whole-of-Government approach to policymaking, the National Bonus should form at least two-thirds of the variable component, with the individual Performance Bonus making up the remaining third.

National Bonus, Performance Bonus and AVC
Mr Speaker, I am glad to see the introduction of a National Bonus. The focus on the income growth of ordinary workers is a welcome departure from the disproportionate focus on GDP growth rate alone, which was the basis for the GDP Bonus in the past.

The previous GDP Bonus could pay out as much as 8 months’ salary in a high-growth year like we saw in 2010.

With regard to the Performance Bonus, the Paper states that it allows the Prime Minister “the discretion to reward a political appointment holder based on performance in his immediate portfolio, as well as wider contributions at a Whole-of-Government level”.

I would like to see greater transparency on the Performance Bonus component, as well as a lowering of its discretionary element.

Sir, I propose that key performance indicators (KPIs) and KPI targets for each ministry be defined at the start of the term of Government.

These KPIs and their targets should be made public, and they should be aligned to the goals that the Government sets out at the opening of Parliament.

Each year, the individual performance bonus of the Minister helming that ministry should be computed based on the achievement of those KPI targets.

Since it would be impractical to tie each and every ministry performance indicator to the Minister, we could select just the most relevant KPIs affecting the majority of Singaporeans.

For example, the Transport Ministry could set KPIs like the frequency of MRT disruptions and commuter satisfaction survey results.

The KPIs could also provide more transparency to the public on a Minister’s performance. Voters may find the information useful for making their decisions at the ballot box.

With the introduction of the National Bonus, I see no need to retain the Annual Variable Component and Special Variable Payment, which are both also based on Singapore’s economic performance. I propose that we do away with them.

Deferred bonuses
Sir, if we are going to have such large bonuses, then a portion of the bonuses should be deferred, rather than having the whole bonus paid out at the end of each year.

A deferred bonus could be structured in the form of a “bonus bank”. This is a concept that some financial institutions introduced in the wake of the last financial crisis to discourage their senior executives from pursuing short-term results at the expense of consistent performance over the longer-term.

Only a portion—perhaps one-third—of the Minister’s National Bonus and Performance Bonus should be paid out at the end of each year, with the rest deposited into a separate account.

If in subsequent years, performance is good, their bonus bank balance will grow. However, if performance fails to meet targets in any one year, there should be a “claw back” which deducts from their bonus bank balance.

At the end of the term of Government, when Parliament is dissolved, the Ministers will get paid what remains in their bonus bank account.

If, say, performance had been good in the first year of Government but poor in subsequent years, the Minister could potentially lose all that is in his or her bonus bank account.

This would help ensure that Ministers always carefully consider the longer term consequences of their policy decisions.

Summary
In summary, Mr Speaker, I support some of the proposals in the White Paper, including the removal of pensions and the introduction of the National Bonus.

However, I fundamentally disagree with the top-down approach of benchmarking Ministerial salaries to top income earners, as well as the principle of paying out huge bonuses to political leaders.

Mr Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the Motion.

Mr Speaker Sir,
The Workers’ Party view the committee’s report with a sense of hope because it is a step in the right direction. We agree with the three principles that political salaries should be competitive, that political service is a calling and has its own ethos, and that wages should be transparent.

Political service is a calling and not be treated as discount factor
However, the order by which the principles are applied has produced in our view a flawed new benchmark. Because competitive salary is placed as the first principle ahead of political service, the committee has pegged ministerial salary to the median salary of the 1000 top-earning Singaporeans and then applied a discount for political service.

If the new benchmark is accepted by the Government, it would continue to send the message, to potential political office holders and the people of Singapore alike, that top pay is the benchmark by which the importance of the office is to be judged, and that the value of political office can, in the final analysis, be monetized. It cannot be，Not even at the highest income levels. Political service is a calling; it is a privilege accorded by the electorate to serve the largest number of our fellow Singaporeans. It is primarily a privilege, not primarily a burden or sacrifice. The principle of political service should come first and not be treated as a discount factor.

Whole of Government, People-up approach
Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point. The Cabinet is the constitutional extension of Parliament and the institutional expression of the legislature’s control over the executive. It is not an extension of the private sector.

This whole-of-government, people-up approach is a pragmatic reality in many well-governed, developed countries and territories around the world.

Is Singapore unique? Of course. But it is not so dissimilar to others that we cannot learn from their best practices and how they apply good principles.

For example, the committee writes, “As is international practice in Westminster Parliamentary systems, the … political appointment holders will also receive MP allowances as they have the dual roles of being MPs”.

Parliament Sovereignty is paramount
We agree that the Ministers should receive their MP allowances. But that is because, Ministers are MPs first, they are not merely also MPs. We must remember that in our system of government, Ministers are first of all MPs elected by the people as their representatives. Not selected by the Prime Minister from the private sector into the Cabinet and then also MPs. Parliament is the highest authority in our system of government, and MPs, as elected representatives of the people, should be the starting point for the determination of ministerial salary. The committee’s benchmark to the private sector clouds this fact. Worker’s Party recommends pegging ministerial salary as multiples of MP allowance. This expresses the fact that ministers are first and foremost elected as MPs to serve and represent the people.

So in what multiples should Singapore peg ministerial salary to MP allowance? We propose that an entry-grade minister’s monthly salary be 5 times the MP allowance, and 9 times for the Prime Minister.

As DPM said, there are no right or wrong answers, and this is ultimately a judgment call. We propose multiples based on the increased responsibilities and additional capabilities and experience required of the different political offices in Singapore. We also believe that this is where the principles of competitive salary and transparency can come in, to take into consideration some of the factors cited by the committee as to why the system of Singapore may be different from those in other countries. In the words of DPM, we believe the pay should be sufficient to not deter potential political office holders with desire and ability, from serving in political office without undue concern for their standards of living.
Of course we would like to see capable men and women in the Cabinet. But I do not believe that our best people for political office are only those who make the most money. Many of our former and current Ministers did not come in from the private sector or the top earning professions, that is as we would expect. Many of them were public servants who heeded the call of political service by standing for elections.

Political service is in the nature of public service. We believe that MP allowance should be set with reference to the salary of senior executives in the regular civil service. This is consistent with the general practice in most of the countries and territories we surveyed.

The starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants in the regular civil service — a director of MX9 grade in the Management Executive Scheme of the civil service (outside of the Administrative Service) is approximately $11,000 a month.

In our proposal, MP allowance would be about $11,000 per month, Ministerial salary would range from $55,000 per month for entry-grade ministers to $99,000 per month for the Prime Minister.

We support the clean wage proposal for transparency, in which compensation is fully accounted for with no hidden items. In addition to a fixed 13-month salary that is keyed to MP allowance, we propose that the ministers and the prime minister receive variable pay of different bonuses that add up to no more than five months in any year (compared to 13.5 months recommended by the committee). Many Singaporeans may take home up to 3 or 4 months of bonuses in a very good year, compared to 13.5 months for the ministers as recommended by the committee. In fact, if the maximum bonuses recommended by the committee were awarded, the reduction in entry-grade minister pay would be 8% and not the 31% calculated by the committee.
In our whole-of-government approach, since civil service salary is aligned to general market conditions faced by Singaporean workers, MP allowance and ministerial salary will move with the income levels of many more Singaporeans than with the total employment and trade income of the top-earning 1000, including their bonuses, commissions and stock options. The Workers’ Party’s benchmark will better help our leaders empathize with the majority of Singaporeans and not just the very few.

Inclusivity vs Exclusivity
The Workers’ Party’s proposed approach aims for enhanced inclusivity and sensitivity to the progress of Singaporeans, rather than discounted exclusivity pegged to top earners. We believe the committee has taken the right step forward with the three principles. It is up to the Government now to go further to apply the principles in the right order by recognizing political service as the first principle, anchored in the primacy of parliament. Let us place ministerial pay on a sound footing in order to ground political leadership in a strong sense of service to all Singaporeans.

Thank you. And now, if I may, in Chinese.

议长先生，

我们认可委员会提出的三大原则：一、政治职位薪金应该具有竞争力；二、从政应该有奉献的精神；三、薪酬应该完全透明。

但遗憾的是，这三大原则在奉行时的先后轻重，却使整套新的方程式出现了根本误区。把部长薪金与全国收入最高的1000人挂钩，然后为了反映政治服务的奉献精神再打个折，这个做法突显了委员会优先考虑的是高薪的原则，这只会进一步强化现有的错误观念，认定从政的价值到头来还是要以金钱来衡量。

我们当然希望有意愿从政的人不会因为薪水过低而裹足不前。但前提是，他立志从政该不是主要因为薪水高，而是因为他先把为国为民服务视为己任。这才是我们应当坚守的第一原则。

认清了从政的本质是公共服务，我们就应该采纳“整体政府”的方案，部长薪金应以议员津贴为基准，而议员津贴则与公务员薪水挂钩。毕竟，在我国的宪政体系下，内阁是国会的延伸，内阁从来不是私人企业界的延伸。

这么一种“整体政府”、由民间从下而上的方案，也在世界许多国家与地区推行。

当然, 新加坡的国情向来就是独一无二的。但再怎么特殊, 也不至于完全找不到其他体制值得我们学习的地方吧？

委员会的建议反映了一个政治盲点：我们的政治领袖可不是直接由私人企业界遴选出来担任部长，而后再兼任民选议员的。相反的，他先得当选为议员，才能受委进入内阁担任部长。因此，部长薪金不应当与私人企业界的薪金水平挂钩，而是应该以国会议员的津贴为基准。

认清这一点后，我们可以考虑第二及第三个原则了：议员津贴的多大倍数才足以确保部长薪金保有竞争力，而又透明化？工人党的建议是：部长薪金应介于议员津贴的五倍至九倍之间，以初级部长倍数最低，总理倍数最高。这个范畴比国际标准来得高，应该足以反映新加坡独特的国情。

委员会的建议所反映的另一个误区是，认定最优秀的从政人才该出自收入最高的1000人当中。我们现任与前任的部长当中，就有好多位并不是私人企业界或者高薪专业出身的。不少部长来自公共服务领域，更有些是先从议员做起，慢慢累积政治经验后再升任部
长。

整体来说，以收入水平论从政才能，反映的恰恰是我们的社会典型的精英主义的狭隘心态。

综上所述，我们建议采取“整体政府”方案，部长薪金是议员津贴的倍数，而议员津贴则等同于高级公务员的起薪， 大约每月11000元。而既然公务员的薪金也与新加坡其他员工一样取决于经济状况及市场条件，这个方案更能确保部长薪金不会与人民的薪金水平脱钩。与其由私人企业界收入最高的1000名精英由上而下再打折，我们认为较适当的做法是从民间由下而上，由公务员薪金为起点，制定议员津贴，最后再乘以倍数制定部长薪金。

我们支持实行透明化的裸薪制。但是委员会建议的花红数额显然过高了。报告书说部长将减薪31%，那是以平均7个月的花红来计算得出的结果。但是花红总数额最高可达13个半月，如果花红全领了，部长薪水基本上比检讨前只减少8%。

因此，工人党建议，在固定的十三个月年薪以外，部长与总理所获得的所有花红数额，应该设定顶限，总共不得超过五个月。这么一来，在景气好表现好的年度里，部长与总理，可领多至十八个月的薪水，而不是委员会所建议的26个半月。

工人党期许部长薪金制度能以更包容更贴近民生的方式来制定，而不是只局限在社会金字塔顶层的一小撮精英范畴内，而后再通过打折，努力地尝试贴近民生。委员会所制定的三大原则是值得肯定的，接下来就有待政府如何将这三大原则的先后轻重厘清，充分体现政治领导层为国为民服务的使命感和高尚本质。

谢谢。

Mr Speaker Sir, the Bill makes several improvements to the existing Act. The Act now covers exposure to chemical or biological agents and improves the insurance protection of the worker. This is commendable. To further safeguard the interests of our workers, I would like to suggest four changes to the Bill.

Let me begin with the proposed amendment of Section 11: removal of court action as a reasonable cause for delay in filing WICA claims. This amendment would effectively prevent injured workers from getting any compensation, if they go to court and lose or withdraw for various circumstances beyond their control. This amendment reverses the decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Pang Chen Suan Vs Commissioner for Labour. The Court of Appeal made it clear that an injured worker can choose to withdraw his claim under WICA to pursue his claim under common law and still be allowed return to WICA later, if there is no prejudice to the employer and insurer. The worker’s choice to sue under common law is considered reasonable cause to make the WICA claim outside the 1 year period.

The Ministry of Manpower’s consultation paper states that they have, quote, “started to see an increase in WICA claims being re-filed more than 1 year after the accident, with some cases being re-filed even 6 years after the accident”, unquote. In fact, MOM’s intention is to discourage so-called forum shopping. Is this increase in re-filings so large that it overwhelms the WICA’s intention as a cap on liabilities? Why punish all workers just to prevent a small number of forum shoppers abusing the system? Why not preserve the current status quo of allowing MOM discretionary powers to decide the merits of each case? Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. In the interests of our workers, the current form of Section 11 need not be changed.

I will now touch on the proposed amendment of Section 3, which would exclude compensation for injuries sustained in work-related fights. The proposed wording gives exceptions on the exceptions for compensation. This is complicated and puts the onus on employees to prove that they are entitled to compensation. Does this not undermine the intent of WICA to be a no-fault claims? The amendment should really be in line with the other stipulations in Section 3 and be stated as an exception to compensation. it should simply state, quote, “if the employee is shown by the proper authorities to have started the assault or destruction of property that resulted in his/her injury then theemployer would not be liable”, unquote. This shifts the burden of proof from the employee to the proper authorities for exceptions for compensation like the other stipulations in Section 3. This will prevent anyone from making use of the law to deny compensation to all workers involved in a fight.

I would like to add that the fact this amendment has been proposed is very worrying. The amendment suggests that workplace fights are not uncommon occurrences today. Is workplace safety and security no longer a given in Singapore? Are our workers now more vulnerable to work-related fights? We hope that the MOM intends to address this problem beyond capping employer liabilities. I notice that the banners of the WSH Nation campaign are lining our streets. And I observe that thousands of our workers have gone online to create their 3D WSH Citizen (I am citizen No. 3005). Each citizen has an audio that says quote, “I pledge to end all risks at work”, unquote. The risks should also include work-related fights. Excluding compensation for injuries due to fights will only make workers more anxious of this particular risk. It is not an effective deterrent if it is meant to be one. I ask that the MOM take a more positive approach to tackling this problem.

Moving on to the next change, I support the expansion in coverage for occupational diseases that the amendment of Section 4 brings.However, the limitation period for exposure to chemical and biological agents needs to be made equivalent to other occupational diseases. The start of the limitation period should be, quote, “no longer employed in the occupation”, unquote, rather than, quote, “ceases to be exposed”, unquote. The limitation period for exposure to chemical and biological agents should be 3 years, given that some Second Schedule diseases have 3 years limitation periods.

Separately, the MOM is conducting a review on the limitation periods of occupational diseases to better align them with the actual disease development timeframe. What is the progress of the review? This should be a matter of urgency since more workers will be compromised by the current common standard of 1-year limitation period with the delay of the review.

My final point is on the Increase of WICA compensation limit in the Third Schedule. The MOM had agreed to this in the consultation paper. Could the Minister indicate when the new limits will be gazetted and when will they take effect?

In addition, in 2008, the Ministry Of Health has further increased the burden on injured workers when they removed hospital subsidies for industrial accidents. The removal is supposedly in line with the principle that it is the employer’s responsibility to ensure the safety and health of their employees at the work place, yet any WICA compensation limit puts a price cap on this principle and transfers the employer’s responsibility to the workers’ burden instead.

For foreigners on S-Pass and Work Permit, the employer is fully liable for all medical treatment costs, even above the WICA limit. This is not so for injured Singaporean workers. After claiming from WICA, they are still liable for their own medical expenses above the WICA limit. Injured Singaporean workers with medical expenses above the limit have two choices. One, give up the WICA claim and take the risk of suing the employer under common law. Or two, apply through the hospital’s medical social workers for further assistance on a case-by-case basis. Why make this policy that results in Singaporean workers being worse off than foreign workers? With the interests of Singaporeans in mind, I propose the removal of the medical claims cap in Section 5 of the Third Schedule.

Mr Speaker, to re-iterate, I would like to say that the bill adds much needed protection for workers who’ve been exposed to chemical and biological agents. However, it still requires tweaks to further the interests of workers. Thank you.

—
Delivered in Parliament on 21 Nov 2011

Mr Speaker Sir, while I acknowledge the intent behind the Bill, there are two areas in which I wish to seek further clarity.

First, the Special Needs Savings Scheme introduced by this Billallows parents to nominate their children with special needs to draw a monthly cash payout, receive medisave transfers or a combination of the both after the parent has passed on. The statutory provisions as they are drafted give wide discretion to the CPF Board and MCYS to decide the amount and method of making the payouts to the nominee. Three parties – the parent, the Board and MCYS – could potentially be involved in the decision on how much to pay the SNSS nominee and how these payments should be made. It should be kept simple: the parent’s wishes expressed in the nomination should come first because parents will know the needs (which include financial needs) of their children best. If the parent’s nomination is unclear, only then should the MCYS be allowed to exercise its discretion. This will reduce the risk of slip-ups in coordination between the Board and MCYS. What areas of concern does the Board have that makes it necessary for the wide discretionary powers?

I also note that under the proposed S 25 (1C), the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports will decide whether the child qualifies as a nominee under this scheme. If the Minister does not issue the certificate of eligibility, the applicant can apply back to him for reconsideration under S 25 (1E). There is a concern that this avenue of re-consideration may not be effective since according to the Bill, the re-consideration is being done by the same person who made the decision in the first place i.e. the Minister. I note that the Minister can delegate one or both of these powers to others as allowed by section 25(1H). How does the government intend to ensure that the re-consideration is done with fresh eyes and is not just a formality?

Second, CPF Life payouts and Minimum Sum withdrawals are an important source of regular income to retired Singaporeans. However, the proposed changes to sections 27Q and 77(1)(o) allow the Board to pay the CPF Life payouts and the Minimum Sum withdrawals by a member who reaches 55 into that member’s account. Our retirees need their CPF Life payouts and Minimum Sum withdrawals in cash for their living expenses. Could the minister clarify why does the Board need the power to pay these payouts and withdrawals to the member’s CPF account instead of in cash? It is rather strange when a member can finally withdraw and enjoy his hard-earned savings from CPF at 55, only to have the Board put it back into his CPF account. Under what circumstances will theBoard exercise these powers?

Thank you.

—-
Delivered in Parliament on 21 Nov 2011

议长先生，

总统在宣读政府施政方针时以继续保持新加坡的独特性为总结。我认为，我们的独特性除了施政方针中所提到的，还应该包括我们的多元语文和文化。我国自独立以来就是一个多元种族的社会，各族的语言和文化也增加了我国多姿多彩的民俗景观。

然而，建国後，随着教育体系和教学媒介语的统一，各族的语言和文化都受到不同层次的冲击。华族的应用语言也在这个过程中产生了巨大的变化。从六十年代开始，短短在一代人的时间里所施行的各种政策，使方言几乎在华族社群中绝迹，取而代之的是华文、华语。如今，这个趋势又步入另一个“舍华文就英文”的状态。眼前所见的是，华族社群以英语为家庭用语的学生比例，已经超越了以华语为家庭用语的学生人数。这似乎已成定局，不可扭转。

目前，华文华语在新加坡正处于转变的关键时期。随着外在大环境的改变，中国的崛起，我们越发感受到华文华语的重要。虽然我们坚持实施双语教育多年，但在这个教育制度下成长的一般年轻人，整体的华英双语能力表现却不突出，这批介于中间地带的所谓双语双文化的年轻人或许还能流利地以华语进行人际沟通，在进行日常生活交流时并不成问题，在讲的层次上已达到中上水平。但事实是，他们却逐渐丧失了读和写的能力。他们当中有好些人已经无法阅读华文报纸及华文文学读物。

今天，摆在眼前的是，华文互联网的崛起让这批年轻双语双文化人才面临更大的全新挑战。

是的，诚如沈颖次长所言，华文的生命力的确很强，在互联网的世界里，华文绝对不会因电脑输入法而在互联网的新时代被淘汰。

华文也的确是以更生动活泼的形态在这平台上茁壮成长，网络热词的大量涌现就是例子。网络词语与现实生活词语也在这时代迅速相融合，产生了如富二代、官二代等网络词语及一些生动的现实生活词语。

不少本地年轻人在互联网上建构高素质的英文网站，他们在网络世界里讨论政治、社会、经济、文化等各种议题，但又有多少年轻人进入华文网络世界里呢？我们能听能说，但读写技能却不够水平的双语双文化人才，是否会沦为全球华文网络世界里的文盲呢？

此外，民间看似蓬勃发展的文化活动、语文竞赛及大专学府或各校所开办的华文文化课程，参与和修选的又有多少是新加坡人呢？

我们总是标榜双语双文化是我们在国际舞台上竞争的一大优势， 平心而论，以我们沦为口头语言的华文程度， 在这场竞赛中，我们胜算的机会到底又有多少呢？以目前我们的双语环境和双语能力来看，我们是否只是在吃老本而已？

诚然，要扭转英文为主，母语为次的局势已是不可能。但至少应该做到的是，让学习母语的经验能更深入与更广泛。

既然我们一直强调成功的双语教育带来了巨大的竞争优势，双语政策似乎成为新加坡教育的重要品牌，那为什么随着英文逐渐占据社会主流，成为新加坡的第一语言后，我们学生的母语水平却似乎开始一蹶不振？最令人费解的是，我们的双语教育系统，除了一退再退之外，竟全然无力挽回。

在这样的大趋势下，我认为，双语政策的重心应该适时调整，也就是说是时候从强调英文，过渡到更为关注母语。否则此一时，彼一时，母语教育一旦崩溃，我们的双语政策也必将名存实亡。

我期待在母语比重的考量上和华文教改的落实上，教育部能在母语教学法，或以新媒体互动性教学来教导华文的同时，也注重最根本的文化传承使命；在注重语文的现代功能性与日常实用性时，也增添教导学生对文化的认识与欣赏。

我们这个小红点的语文政策绝对不可能左右全球，不论是华、巫、印的语文环境发展的大格局，但我们的语文政策，尤其是华文的语文政策，则肯定会影响我们下一代在全球的竞争力。在不久的将来，在华人世界里，包括中港台等地，越来越多的年轻人都能同时掌握流利的英语与华语，而在西方世界里，学习华文华语的年轻人也将逐年增加。

这些其他国家年轻的一代都因为双语，甚至多语能力的优越而能同时拥有东西方文化的精华与资讯的优势，当然也更能遨游自如地，驰骋在东西方的现实与虚拟世界里。到时，我国年轻一代的人，不但将失去原有的优势，甚至会处于劣势。

我相信这是一个忧国忧民的政府所应该担心的事，也应该是在我们讨论政策的未来方向时所应思索的范围之内。

Mr. Speaker Sir,
In his Address, the President stated that our shared goal is to create a better life for all. Sir, we share this goal.

We also agree that economic growth is basic to improving our lives. I do not think anyone of us here expects money to drop from the sky. Singaporeans are pragmatic and mature enough to understand this.

The Presidential Address also provided a broad outline on achieving a better life for all, from the young to the old, from the lower income to those doing exceptionally well.

All these are aimed at achieving a happy and fulfilling life for all Singaporeans. It is therefore puzzling that some PAP MPs made a fuss when Sylvia Lim said that the government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals. Besides normal economic indicators, we should consider other indicators reflecting the happiness and well-being of a society, as articulated in the United Nations resolution initiated by Bhutan and supported by Singapore. In Bhutan’s case, they use Gross National Happiness (GNH).

The President described the situation after the general elections as a ‘new normal’. Should the government not view indicators such as GNH as a ‘new normal’ in addition to GDP & GNP? I hope that this is not a sign that the government’s memory of the people’s reactions to its policies during the General Election is fading.

In the Presidential Address, a promise was made to our senior citizens that “you can spend your silver years with peace of mind” – a promise which I take to heart. Yes, this is what our senior citizens deserve. It is only fair that those who have contributed to the progress of the nation, who have moved Singapore from the Third World to the First World, should be recognized and treated accordingly. This is what a responsive and responsible government should do.

To ensure that our senior citizens will live with peace of mind and dignity, the government must provide affordable health care and adequate housing as well as appropriate retirement financing. This will require more government expenditure.

When MPs from the Workers’ Party raised questions related to these issues in this House, they were met with criticisms from the PAP. We were often warned about the dangers of a ‘welfare state’. We were reminded that there is always a trade-off in any policy. This makes me wonder whether the promise to our senior citizens in the Presidential Address will remain as a promise worth less than the paper on which it is given – until the next general election.

While I agree that we should be mindful of the pitfalls of a welfare state, I think it is high time that the PAP MPs refrain from using this as a ‘red herring’ to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government.

In this regard, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make the commitment to strengthen our social safety nets in healthcare, housing and CPF. I hope our senior citizens will see the Prime Minister fulfill his pledges to make a real difference to their lives.

Sir, indeed, we should be fully aware of potential trade-offs in policy. We should also be on guard against viewing trade-offs only from the Government’s perspective. We should always assess trade-offs from the people’s perspective, especially those who are severely affected by the policy. However, the Government has often used ‘trade-offs’ as and when it suited them.

When the Government allowed two casinos to be built here, it highlighted the benefits to our economy over related gaming and social ills – never mind the trade-offs. When the Government decided to go ahead with hospitalization means testing without a transparent safety net for the sandwiched “not too poor, not too rich” group, it spoke about subsidizing those who needed it most.

To shorten the long queue for subsidized rental flats, the Government’s expedient solution was to disqualify more people from applying. They were told to live with their children regardless of how that could affect family relationships and as a result, some elderly people suffer emotionally. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that the issue of higher demand for subsidized rental housing was not straight-forward, but it needed attention.

However, Sir, the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Elections and even now is that the Government is more concerned with paying its Ministers well than about the welfare of the people. I think that the government must ask itself why Singaporeans feel and think this way.

I believe, Sir, the answer lies in the policy “trade-offs” expounded by a member on the government bench. It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected.

The policy “trade-off” is nothing more than a political assessment by the govt. The assessment is whether people can withstand – or as we say in Malay, ‘boleh tahan’ – the impact of the policy. But when the people ‘tak boleh tahan’, the govt will ‘kena’ and get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.

The government should thank the opposition parties for making tremendous efforts despite the lack of resources to allow Singaporeans to exercise their right to vote and express their views. The opposition parties have also enabled the government to awaken to the problems on the ground that it had thought were manageable.

I am happy to note that the PAP has done some reflection on the ground reactions and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people.

We have seen a spectrum of policy changes since the election in May even before the opening of Parliament. We also saw various Ministers at work – including the Minister for Transport taking public transport – and the swift response from the Minister for MND on the usage of railway land. I am also happy to note the shift in the focus of our education philosophy. In this regard, the announcement in this House that the MCYS is now not only looking after the “In Risk Group”, but will also be focusing on “At Risk Group” is a positive step. I am of the view that this proactive approach in social services is the right direction.

Sir, all these developments after the GE augur well for the future of Singapore. They reflect the dynamism of Singapore as a nation.

I am also pleased to note that although the political system is not a level playing field for opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system.

Here we are, in this House, the 12th Parliament, which we hope is the beginning of a “First World Parliament” befitting a First World nation, Singapore.

While the lack of resources and information may hamper the Workers’ Party from developing alternative policies, it will not deter us from doing our best to contribute to the debate in parliament on behalf of our electorate and the people of Singapore. We will scrutinize policies for any loopholes and gaps that are likely to affect our people adversely. We will be the voice of the people in the House so that the government will also consider their concerns and needs in any policy trade off.

I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of the doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of western liberal democracy and work towards a First World Parliament in our own way. The Singapore way, to build a better life for all Singaporeans and a prosperous Singapore, based on justice, equality and happiness for our people.