Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 85.
“So the Minister is giving an assurance to this House that if it qualifies, it will be built. Am I correct?”
“I am talking about this particular footpath in Yishun. If it meets all the criteria, would the HDB be willing to build a footpath there, ie, it qualifies in terms of pedestrian traffic, usefulness, and also in terms of the length of time in which it would be there?”
“Sir, is there any footpath built on Government land which is in the PAP ward?”
“In view of this incident, has the HDB stepped up its inspection of other blocks of flats built about that time?”
“Sir, the Minister has said that the pillar of this particular block has been strengthened six times. Why is there a necessity? Normally, I believe, it is only three times. Has the HDB assumed that the others were also about to buckle up?”
“Sir, how does the ratification of WTO affect Singapore's position in regard to the free trade area that Singapore is going to enter in 2010, under an APEC agreement? How do these two reconcile with each other? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, under the existing GATT arrangements, there are rules which allow certain types of free trade agreements to be legitimate under GATT. So if your legislation complies with the GATT rules, then you may set up a free trade area. I imagine, although I am not a trade lawyer, that the same will apply under the WTO. Secondly, Mr Chiam may be mistaken in thinking that we are going to set up an APEC free trade area in 2010. The goal is APEC free trade in 2010. A free trade area connotes specific legislation, hard commitment, precise organisational arrangements. APEC free trade is an ideal. It can be done informally, it can be done unilaterally. How it will be done will be discussed in due course. But there is no commitment to set up a free trade area. SENDING OF MINISTERS, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND OFFICIAL DELEGATIONS ABROAD (Amount spent) 12. Mr Ling How Doong asked the Minister for Finance what is the total amount spent in sending Ministers, Members of Parliament and official delegations abroad for 1993 and from January to October 1994.”
“All right. Do you have control over your grassroots' organisation, ie, the CCC, and its Chairman?”
“I will ask another supplementary question. Can I assume that Opposition wards will never get the recommendation of their grassroots' organisation in relation to any application for support of CIPC projects in their constituencies? Can I take that?”
“Anyone looking at the composition, with only PAP Members, would it not be deemed that it is very political in nature?”
“As regards the composition of the CIPC, why should only MPs from the PAP be included in this Committee?”
“I want to know why the Potong Pasir CCC did not submit the application for CIPC support to the secretariat.”
“Has the Potong Pasir Town Council's application for CIPC support in regard to construction of a walkway been given to the secretariat for processing?”
“What is this secretariat? Can he explain to me?”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about the secretariat. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that once an application has been made to the CCC, the CCC will let the secretariat Ž I do not know what secretariat Ž know of this application? Is that correct?”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has been reported over TV that most of the CIPC projects will receive Government support if they meet certain criteria and, if I can remember, he said that if they are useful and beneficial to the citizens, they will most probably be given CIPC support. I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: is a walkway linking a block of flats to a bus stop a CIPC project?”
“I will be more specific. Do grassroots leaders' decisions made in regard to CIPC projects reflect the policies of the Government?”
“I am just asking a question in regard to your Ministry.”
“Yes. Do decisions made at the grassroots level reflect the policies of the PAP Government?”
“No. They must decide according to some guidelines. They cannot just arbitrarily decide on their own.”
“Yes. He says that since no such question was asked, it is not his duty to answer any question outside the Question asked. I want to ask him another question: do the grassroots leaders' decisions reflect the policies of the Government?”
“The Senior Parliamentary Secretary appears to be rather naive. Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, could you get to the point and ask your supplementary question?”
“In view of a question being filed in Parliament, is it not the duty of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to find out whether an application has been made for support of a CIPC project at Potong Pasir? Is it not his duty to do so? He cannot just come to Parliament and say, "I do not know anything about it."”
“We have to apply through the CCC and that is the rule laid down by the PAP Government, and that is exactly what we did. Permission was refused outright and without reason. Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary aware of the Potong Pasir Town Council's request for support of a CIPC project?”
“Then why is it that Potong Pasir constituency has not received even one cent from the Government in regard to these grants whereas PAP wards have obtained $51.2 million? Why was our request for support for a CIPC project, ie, a walkway, refused?”
“Sir, a question has been put to the Minister to specifically ask how much money has been disbursed to Opposition-controlled Town Councils. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the money was disbursed through the CCCs. My question is: is it not incumbent upon the Minister, once a question has been asked, to find out how much money has been disbursed to Opposition wards in regard to CIPC projects? I think it is his duty to find out. How can he come to the House and avoid the question and say that it is the CCCs who are responsible for getting the funds?”
“Mr Prime Minister, then I can keep my mouth shut!”
“Sir, would the Member for Jalan Besar GRC allow me to clarify?”
“It is not wrong. But where is the limit? As I have already brought up this point, why do Ministers need so much pay for? As long as they have got a pay for a comfortable living, I do not see why they should be paid an additional $100,000 - $200,000 more. Why do they need so much more money? We are discussing just now on the amendment motion anyway.”
“So do you not agree with me that Ministers' pay will be going up for the next 10 years? As the economy grows, the private sector businesses increase, their CEO will be paid higher. Therefore, when their pay goes up, Ministers' pay will also go up. That is very simple. An hon. Member: It is wrong.”
“The Member for Buona Vista says that if the Opposition requires it, any time they could bring up a motion or even ask a Question on the Ministers' pay. But that is not the traditional practice of Parliament in regard to the review of Ministers' pay. There is a distinction between bringing up a motion ad hoc at any time to discuss Ministers' pay and the Ministers themselves moving a motion at periodical intervals of time to review Ministers' pay. There is a distinction. In the case of what the Government is advocating, the Ministers' pay will be pegged to a salary scale, equivalent to a salary scale, and there is automatic increment. I believe one of the Ministers has said that the prospects look good for Singapore for the next 10 years. So the Ministers can be assured of pay rises for the next 10 years, unless the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that the economy is going to have a down slide within the next few years, which I do not think so. An hon. Member: So?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment. Sir, the NMP has suggested that a referendum be held. A referendum would probably be the best forum to get public opinion on the issues that we are debating, ie, whether to peg the Ministers' salaries to the private sector salaries based on the six professions and whether or not to do away with the need to come back to Parliament to review Ministers' salaries. I think these two are important principles and members of the public should have a say. Singapore holds Switzerland as a model. As Members know, in Switzerland, they often hold referendum on national issues, and even on local issues. But what does not suit Singapore, even if it holds Switzerland as a model, it would not follow what Switzerland did. As far as I know, on record, the Prime Minister has never agreed to any referendum called by the Backbenchers. The next best thing, of course, is to have this issue decided at the elections. But there is a problem in calling for this issue to be decided at the elections because, inevitably, the PAP will be returned to power and the Government can give the excuse, "There, you are, we have the mandate." But even if this issue were to be discussed and debated in the elections, I would say that if there is a loss of more seats to the Government or there is a further drop in percentage of votes, it would mean that the public has rejected what the Government proposes in the White Paper. I think that should be the true interpretation of election results. On that basis, I would agree that the recommendations contained in the White Paper be debated at the elections. There are, in fact, very important issues involved because the practice that has been going for so long in Parliament is going to be taken away.”
“If the PAP Government is sincere in wanting to get the feedback from the people, and to convince the people that the salaries of the Ministers are reasonable and appropriate to the situation in our country, then they should not be acting too hastily in wanting to have the White Paper forcibly endorsed in Parliament. They should provide all the information that I mentioned above to allow the people to make some comparative studies. They should also make this an election platform for the next General Election so that the people will have the opportunity of discussing it extensively, and showing through the ballot box whether they support or reject the recommendation of the White Paper. Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment to the motion: To delete from "That" to the end and insert - "While this Houses endorses the principle that Ministers' salaries should be commensurate with their responsibilities and duties, it is of the view that Ministers' salaries should be decided after public debate outside this House and accordingly this question be stood over for the next Parliament after the next General Election."”
“Fourthly, for each and every Minister, if he is to remain in the private sector, or in the public service like the Ministry of Defence until today, to what grade will they be promoted? How much would be their salary? Fifthly, apart from monetary sacrifice, what sort of other personal sacrifices does the Minister make or has to make? Sixthly, in the case of Heads of Government and ministers of other countries, what are their basic salaries? What sort of fringe benefits and bonuses do they get in all? Seventhly, the personal assets of the Ministers should be declared so that the people of Singapore will know whether they have any financial problem, and whether the personal sacrifices they have made due to their involvement in politics are too much. The Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, Mr Jeyaretnam, has already made this suggestion in Parliament but it was not accepted. Eighthly, for those Ministers who have stepped down, how much do they earn when they go into the private sector? Mr Speaker, Sir, with the PAP having a commanding majority in this House, of course, this salary benchmarking will be approved. In future, the problem will be treated as solved, once and for all. There will be no need to debate the Ministers' pay. Every year, on 1st July, their salaries will automatically be increased. There is no longer any need to wait for three to five years to get a pay rise. They can have their pay rise in a grand and imposing manner along with the big bosses in the private sector. The boat will rise with the rising tide and their pockets will be full.”
“Now with this huge increase in pay, do you think the Government can assure the people of Singapore that there will be no more corruption? Then, if there are junior civil servants being found to be corrupt, will the Government consider giving them a hefty pay rise because their remuneration is not good enough? Human desire for material gains is insatiable. Do you really believe that you can keep the talented and the honest just by giving them high salaries? How high must their salaries be to be considered enough? Using the excuse of wanting to keep the talented and the honest to give the Ministers and top civil servants hefty pay rises will certainly leave us completely bewildered! Of course, I am not asking the Ministers and top civil servants to serve Singapore for free. We all know that in Singapore, apart from the air and the haze we are having now, nothing is for free. The question is: How much is reasonable? How much is an acceptable benchmark? In my opinion, to fix a benchmark for the Ministers' pay and to convince the people that the PAP benchmark is reasonable, the Government should provide the people with the following information: Firstly, how many present or resigned Ministers feel that their pay is too low, and how many think that their financial sacrifice is too high and the return is too low? Secondly, for the Prime Minister and Ministers, apart from their basic pay, what kind of perks do they get, and how much in quantitative terms? Thirdly, what are the responsibilities and work of the Ministers? How many hours of work do they put in every day, and how many days of vacation do they enjoy a year?”
“We must compare also with the pay given to the Ministers and top civil servants in other countries and then adjust them according to the circumstances of Singapore to fix this kind of benchmark. The White Paper also mentions that in some countries, a larger part of their ministers' salary is camouflaged by non-monetary rewards such as free housing, cars, expense account, overseas holidays, etc. The PAP Government has all along been well-known for its effective use of statistics. They should have no difficulty evaluating the worth of these hidden perks in terms of cash value. Why does not the PAP Government do that? Why should you compare chickens with ducks? This is very unconvincing! Mr Speaker, Sir, here I would like to talk about the basic argument of the White Paper "Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government" and, that is, what the Lianhe Zaobao described as "High pay to keep the worthy and good remuneration to keep the honest". First of all, when we describe someone as being "a person of virtue" or a worthy person, we refer not only to his ability and wisdom but also his integrity and superior character. So if you suggest using money to keep the worthy and encourage them to look at money for whatever thing they do, then it is an insult to the bona fide worthy person. Even for an ordinary person, money is not the only factor of consideration when you come to work. If our country is to be ruled by the so-called "worthy" people who are money-oriented, then it would be disastrous for the country and the people! "Good remuneration to keep the honest" is also a problem. In the past, there were some cases of corruption involving our Ministers and top civil servants. Does this imply that their remuneration was not good enough?”
“For instance, in 1985, when we were facing recession, many private sector employees were retrenched. They were completely helpless. But the Ministers and civil servants continued to get the same pay and they were enjoying themselves in the recession. Furthermore, so long as the Ministers have completed 10 years' service, they will get a handsome pension for their retirement. The employees in the private sector will have to work until 60 years of age before they can retire, and after that they have to fend for themselves. According to the World Bank report, in Japan, and some successful economics in Asia, including Singapore, when a successful official retires, he will get a lot of rewards, much more than their salaries, benefits and allowances. In most cases, our Ministers and top civil servants, after retirement, will be invited to take up richly-paid positions in the public or private sector. As such, our Ministers and top civil servants enjoy certain security even after their retirement. The White Paper makes no mention of the special status and safeguards enjoyed by top civil servants and the Ministers, nor any objective comparison of the nature and risk of their job with that in the private sector, but simply uses the average income of a handful of top earners in the private sector as the benchmark for the Ministers' salaries. This, I feel, is an attempt to hoodwink the people. I do not think we should accept this kind of rash benchmarking. If we want to set standards and benchmarking for top civil servants and Ministers, then it should be comparing like with like. We should compare ourselves with countries like Switzerland, etc, according to the land area, the population size, the income of the people, the economic growth and the complexity of politics.”
“But the motivation of the Ministers and the top civil servants is to serve the people. The nature of their work is to run the country with the power of the Government, and it is their job to run the country well. Just because the economy has been booming, the private sector has been reaping in huge profits, and their employees are getting high salaries, the Government wants to peg the Ministers' salaries to the private sector. Do not tell me that the Government is suffering from the politics of envy � envious of other people's high salaries. With so much emphasis on the Administrative Service and the huge increase in the salaries of the top Administrative Officers, it seems that in future, the formulation and implementation of Government policies will rely substantially on these senior and superscale civil servants, and the Ministers will have these highly paid Administrative Officers to work for them, and their workload will therefore be reduced considerably. Why then are the Ministers getting a pay rise? In order to show that they are "worth more than what they are paid" as mentioned by a Member in this House, these administrative elites sitting in the ivory tower will think of ways and means to make more profits for the Government. Yes, this will of course create more wealth for the country, but what will happen to the livelihood of the people? Thirdly, work security. In Singapore, so long as the civil servants and Ministers do not make a serious mistake, their jobs can be said to be an "iron rice bowl". With the huge pay rises in recent years, this "iron rice bowl" has become a "golden rice bowl". This golden rice bowl, even in spite of an economic downturn, will be strong and stable, with no fear of being broken.”
“First of all, let me look at the question whether it is equitable to peg the Minister's pay with that of the private sector. The White Paper suggested taking the average income from six selected professions as the benchmark for the Ministers' salaries. This figure is $1.217 million. This is based on the average income from the six professions in 1992. The present salary of Ministers is more than $60,000 per month, and it will be further increased after it is pegged with the private sector. According to the annual report of the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), 141 residents of Singapore had income of more than one million dollars in 1992. But in 1993, some 394 people had income of more than $5 million. So if we take these top four income earners in the six professions as the benchmark for the Ministers and top civil servants' salaries, and the top earners's income keeps on increasing substantially, then the salaries of the Ministers and top civil servants will be raised correspondingly. I fear that in future the salaries of Ministers and top civil servants will become a heavy burden to Singapore. On the other hand, according to the 1990 Population Census, more than 70% of our workforce earn less than $1,500. So if you use the income of just a handful of super-high income earners as the benchmark, and ignoring the great disparity among the incomes of the people of Singapore in general, is it reasonable? Secondly, looking at the nature of work and the motivation, the objective of the private sector is to make money. If an employee can make so much money for his company, he deserves to be paid a salary in accordance with his contribution. From a personal point of view, this is reasonable and just, seemly and fitting.”
“Do not make desire visible so as not to disturb the minds of the people." Of course, we are not saying that we should not value the wise. What we are saying is that we should not over-emphasize elitism and materialism so that the desire of the people becomes stronger and stronger, resulting in their being obsessed with the desire for gain. The Prime Minister also mentioned about corruption in society. Corruption arises because of greed and because of greed they become corrupted and polluted. So if we over-emphasise money and the society becomes such that so long as you have money you can call the shots, then no matter how much you pay them, they will be asking for even more. I think the complexity of this matter is far beyond the question of salary, as suggested by the Prime Minister. It is not that simple! Mr Speaker, Sir, as a matter of fact, the sacrifice made by those who enter politics and serve the people cannot be measured by money alone. Some former Presidents of the United States of America were assassinated. Even President Clinton has also faced an attempt made on his life. This is a matter of life and death, not something which can be compensated by salary. So to debate on how to reduce the sacrifices of people who enter politics by monetary compensation is, by itself, an insult to the politicians and statesmen. We should adhere to the principle that so long as the Minister can maintain a comfortable lifestyle, with adequate safeguards for his present living and life after retirement, it would be sufficient to keep him working with peace in mind. Since the Government is insisting on measuring in the light of utilitarianism, and has published the White Paper to support its argument, do allow me to present my views on the contents of the White Paper.”
“Even if it results in huge economic growth year after year, and the Government coffer greatly enriched, the livelihood of the people need not necessarily be improved because the formulation and results of their policies will be determined purely from the angle of economic benefits only. If the Prime Minister is presenting this White Paper to set a benchmark for the Ministers' salaries based on the top earners in the private sector simply because the people with potential to be Ministers whom he contacted were not prepared to come forward to serve the nation due to the salaries being not sufficiently attractive, then I would suggest that he look again for some others who have the vision and are prepared to dedicate themselves to the nation. If, after so many years of nation building, we cannot cultivate some talented people with dedication to serve the country, then I must say with great regret that our country is a failure. It is like a successful entrepreneur who spent all his life working to amass upon himself great wealth, but he neglected other important things in life which money cannot buy, such as his family, the education and upbringing of his children, etc. In the end, he found himself having no successor. If our country is facing this kind of problem today, the elites among our younger generation now would only look at money, then the PAP Government should make an overall review on whether their philosophy of running the country is out of balance, and whether it has been putting too much emphasis on utilitarianism and elitism. The ancient Chinese philosopher Laotze said, "Do not esteem the wise so as to prevent strife among the people. Do not value the scarce goods so as to prevent robbery.”
“On the other hand, the ordinary workers compare downwards with their peers. It is a reality, although it is an unfortunate one. That is why I emphasized just now that the Government should provide more facilities and training opportunities so that our workers would also have a chance to upgrade their standard of living. I base my comparison on reports carried in the foreign magazines. So if the Opposition Member has the time, he should try and read more of these financial magazines. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, when I heard the Prime Minister's speech in this House yesterday, I was very shocked. It seems like the future of our country will be determined by how much salary we give to our Ministers and top civil servants. The logic of the Prime Minister is that the higher the pay the better we can attract the top talents to govern the country and there will be continuous growth in the economy, more safeguards to the people. Otherwise, the future of the country will be bleak. He went on to point out that corrupt practices among politicians in the United Kingdom was due to their salaries being too low. The Prime Minister also said that the most important question is what kind of people we want to rule the country. This is indeed a question worth considering. On this question, my intuitive reaction is that I do not want people who look to money to run the country. These people will be weighing their losses and gains in terms of money and the policy they embrace will surely be profit-oriented.”
“Sir, may I get a clarification from the Member for Yuhua? I heard her speech through the interpretation. According to the interpreter, the Member said that CEOs' salaries in multinational companies amount to millions and even billions of dollars. I have hope I got it correct. May I get a clarification whether these MNCs are situated in Singapore or elsewhere and how are these millions and billions of dollars being paid? Are they being paid in Singapore dollars, American dollars, Indian rupees or what? Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon( In Mandarin): I mentioned just now that if you have read the foreign magazines on finance and business world, you will note that even the CEO of Walt Disney, which is a company dealing in entertainment and fun, his bonus and salary can be as much as a few hundred million US dollars. As for computer companies and other major enterprises, the CEOs' incomes are also very sizable. Even for someone who deals in fun and entertainment, he can get so much in remuneration, then what about our Ministers whose responsibility is surely not child's play? They are charged with the heavy responsibility of looking after the survival of the country and the well-being of the people in the country. They have to see to it that the people are fully employed. So I feel that the talents that we want should be of international standard. Because Singapore is an international city, the professionals we train are also of international standard. Sometimes I have to explain to our workers why there is a big gap between the salary of ordinary workers and the top professionals. This is an unfortunate reality because the professionals' competition is international and compare upwards with the professionals in other countries.”
“There are two things. People who upgrade their flat have to pay additional money and they would also assume that the economic life of the building should last probably 10 to 15 years longer. So they are asking whether or not the Government is willing to extend their lease.”
“If I heard the Acting Minister correctly, even a flat, after upgrading, will not have a longer life than before it was upgraded? Is that right?”
“Why is the Minister unwilling to try this system? I think it is a very workable system.”
“Sir, the main concern of all motorists is to see that the COE prices will come down. I think that is the main concern of all motorists. Will the Minister consider a scheme - I believe it is already canvassed in the newspapers, and maybe an amendment of the pay-as-you-bid - where you take only the bids of the top 25% and the balance of the 75% you can take the strike price. Has the Ministry considered that scheme?”
“Sir, the Minister says that the pay-as-you-bid system and discouraging double transfers would be put on trial. How soon would they be implemented?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am also of the view that it is equally important to find more effective ways to raise the political awareness of our people, in particular the younger generation, so that more of them will get involved in the political process and become politicians in the long run. Mr Deputy Speaker, on this note, I support the recommendations of the White Paper. 5.17 pm”
“In this connection, a relevant question to be asked is: is the recommended formula transparent and accountable? Not many people realise that this is in fact one of the main objectives of the White Paper, ie, to enable the majority of Singaporeans to see and judge for themselves the details of how and what Ministers are paid. In my view, the benchmarks recommended are reasonable as they are still below private sector levels. Furthermore, the proposed salary revision will be done gradually over a period of three years and beyond. Although I can go along with the proposal for a one-third discount for the Ministers' benchmark as recommended, what the people should remember is that there are aspects of the Minister's job for which it is difficult to draw a comparison, such as the political responsibility of persuading and carrying people along to support unpopular and painful policies which are for the long-term good of the country. Sir, like everything else that is new, we must give an opportunity for the formula to be implemented and tested. I also support my colleague's suggestion that the White Paper be discussed thoroughly before we come to a decision. What the people also want to see is the Government's assurance that should the scenario change, the formula to be implemented can be adjusted accordingly. This is very important if we want to avoid this issue being manipulated by irresponsible parties. We have witnessed how this point can be manipulated just a while ago. Although recommendations have been made, we have to wait and see whether we can draw potential candidates to enter politics and take part in managing Singapore.”
“They need to understand that this is an issue of national importance, as already explained at length, and that this concerns the question of ensuring competent political leadership to ensure a good government. Surely, it is not difficult for people to understand that there is a nexus between their own future and having honest and competent people in government. In this regard, our Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the Government's policies and actions, as decided by the Cabinet, will determine whether Singapore continue to survive and prosper, with its people able to enjoy quality of life, or go downhill, which will result in misery and suffering. Sir, the crux of the matter is to ensure that people of calibre from each generation join politics and thereafter become Ministers. It is upon the shoulders of the Ministers to protect what we have achieved so far and it is also upon the shoulders of the Ministers that we place the task of continuing the process of improvements and renewal in the future. It would be irresponsible of us to ignore the reality that it is becoming increasingly difficult today to attract our best talents to go into Government against the scenario of a buoyant economy, both domestically and externally, with salaries in the private sector far outstripping salaries in the public sector. If we do not want our bureaucracy to deteriorate, we have no option but to be competitive with the market. Bringing the salary levels of our civil servants closer to market levels is the right thing to do. Sir, in my view, the recommendations in the White Paper are pragmatic, as adequate research and preparations have been done in the search for a long-term solution for salary adjustments for Ministers and senior public officers.”