Thio Li-ann
Singapore
“Also, it appears that the existing Act and these amendments do not require the relevant decision makers, such as the Board of Film Censors and Committee of Appeal to give reasons for their decisions. Why not include a statutory duty to give reasons for their decisions, as a matter of good governance?”
“The question is this: there is a virtue in writing down rights. Though it is clear that the right to vote is a constitutional right, my suggestion was that if you write it into Part IV, you can get to the detail.”
“Given Singapore's high standing in the legal world, such a museum would be a worthy addition to our cultural space. Culture itself embodies an intangible or spiritual value from which the soul of a nation is forged.”
“And we should be very careful when we tinker with the Constitution. The multi-racial situation in Singapore is very fragile. I lived through the riots of 1963/1964 and I remember 13th May in 1968. Just for clarification, because I may be misunderstood.”
“Nothing can be achieved without people and nothing endures without institutions: good people and good institutions complement each other in building a constitutional state where a basic value is to remind those holding political power that they are public servants, not overlords.”
“Lastly, to broaden our perspectives as global citizens in a global city with a global hinterland, the IAD could promote public outreach by providing basic international law information on its website, such as what treaties are, and how treaties serve the national interest. Community Legal Clinics”
The complete record
Every one of 214 lines we hold for Thio Li-ann, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 5.
“Sir, I thank the Minister of State for her very detailed response. I would like to ask whether she thinks that the principles of CEDAW, which talk in terms of eliminating gender discrimination, should be incorporated into the educational curriculum, so that children from a young age can be taught not to adopt gender stereotypes.”
“It would be a sad indictment of my generation if no one came forward to serve without excessive monetary inducement, because, to be bereft of deep convictions is to be improverished indeed. 3.05 pm”
“My concern is that if we conceptualise the worth of our Government leaders in predominantly material or monetary terms, an over emphasis on market values may send the wrong message to my generation. After all, the worth of a person does not turn on how much he earns. One's sense of duty must perhaps coexist with other motives, but where does prudence end and avarice begin? When does the impulse to reward someone for a job well done cross the line and descend into the realm of greed? I appreciate the need to pay Ministers well, but in devising an appropriate formula, there is a need to be vigilant in light of public unhappiness to strike a median between austerity and excessive prosperity. Minister Lim Swee Say spoke of the need to have leaders with thinking heads, caring hearts and clean hands. To this recipe, I would add the quality of sacrifice, of putting others first, a certain liberality of spirit that is manifested in sincerity, courage, generosity and service. We must take care and be conscious of the message being sent to Singaporeans through this revision exercise, as the underlying assumptions speak of how we value things. Do we value people instrumentally, primarily with what can be quantified? Or do we appreciate the intrinsic worth of things, which is essential to any society which cherishes the principle of human dignity and authentic community? As our political leaders, we, the citizens of Singapore, are watching you and learning from your example. I hope that when the time comes, my generation will be ready, able and willing to receive the baton of leadership and to view this as a vocation, a calling, rather than a salaried job.”
“The lure was the promise of a Masters scholarship which came attached with a three-year bond. At the end of the three years, I had a better understanding of what the job entailed. I felt that I had built something worthwhile. I could have joined, I suppose, a good law firm and practised corporate law. Perhaps, I might even have been in the running to become one of those persons against whom Ministerial salaries are benchmarked. But I chose to stay on as a university don. Indeed, for many years, my students frequently asked me when I was leaving for practice as, in fact, many of my colleagues had done. However, I found immense satisfaction (and irritation) in being an educator and scholar. There were other things which added value to my occupation which outweighed the material rewards of legal practice. One might think that a top administrator at age 32, after completing her bond, may find similar satisfaction in her job scope, aside from pecuniary compensation, to motivate her to stay. All the more so a Minister. The position of Minister is a position of high honour, great power, which is accompanied by great responsibility. A Minister may be able to command a greater salary in the private sector. However, as a Minister, he or she is uniquely positioned to build an enduring legacy - to solve healthcare woes, transportation problems, to keep the economy humming and thousands of Singaporeans employed, to sustain friendly relations with neighbouring states. It is a privilege to be able to build something of enduring worth in our lifetime. Greatness is not measured in purely monetary terms. Otherwise, we would celebrate mercenaries, not patriots. The market is a marvellous motivator, but it can lead to insularity, selfishness and the I-come-first mentality.”
“The intangibles count. Civic virtues like patriotism, honour, duty, a commitment to the common weal, may be difficult to quantify, but are as real as the wind we cannot see. We need a vision for my generation which transcends instrumental objectives or which conceptualises things primarily or exclusively in pecuniary terms. It is sad to think that no good people will come forward to serve because 'money no enough'. But, Sir, we are not merely atomistic, profit-maximising individuals, evaluating opportunity costs and benefits. The call to service is a noble one. Therefore, in tandem with a generous pay package, job satisfaction and other intangibles should motivate future Ministers and top administrators. There is more to life than seeing things through the dominant lens of money and human resource management. Virtues, like loyalty, sacrifice, perseverance, sustain hope that a nation will endure and become great. We do not do things merely because of financial reward. I think of my father who represented Singapore as a swimmer and water polo player for 12 years, including at the 1956 Olympics in Melbourne. As a university student and later a practising engineer, he trained everyday in preparation, paid for his own expenses, food and even swimming trunks. He never received a cent. He never got a bonus when he won anything. In material terms, all he got was a medal and a jacket with the Singapore crest for his efforts. This sufficed for him. In non-material terms, he speaks to me of the tremendous joy in winning, the honour of representing Singapore and the fellowship of his team-mates. Perhaps, I have been influenced by my father. When I graduated from Oxford, I was offered a teaching position at the NUS Law Faculty.”
“These ideals are foundational to our constitutional order which can inspire in us a sense of national pride and identity. The Minister Mentor had a vision. First, it was for a Malaysian Malaysia, rather than one where the constitution entrenched unequal rights on the basis of race. When we seceded from the Federation, the vision for Singapore was that of a multi-racial democratic society where meritocracy was key to social mobility and indeed social stability. I recall a conversation I had with our first Chief Minister, David Marshall, shortly after he returned to Singapore from his ambassadorship in Paris. He always spoke of the need to have "chilli padi in our veins." His passion and his wit were invigorating as was his patriotism. Ever the idealist, he nevertheless acknowledged the central role of the Minister Mentor in spearheading Singapore's tremendous economic success through policies based on hard-headed economic rationality and the will to push through unpopular policies which were later vindicated. We are the beneficiaries of the successful execution of this vision of our forefathers. Their sacrifice and foresight are inspiring and worthy of emulation. Minister Mentor himself gave up what would certainly have been a lucrative and distinguished legal career because of his vision and commitment to Singapore. The post-65 generation has enjoyed peace and affluence but we also face the uncertainties and insecurities wrought by globalisation, terrorism and other pressing concerns. For Singapore to be able to negotiate these 21st century challenges, it needs to be socially cohesive and resilient. This depends on the character and identity of its people and a common unifying vision for our nation which transcends the joint pursuit of material wealth.”
“When it comes to our political leaders, surely, what Singaporeans want are men and women of character and vision to steer the ship. One is willing to follow where one is inspired and leaders must lead by example through sacrifice and service. For better or worse, our leaders influence us and shape our common destiny. Sir, my generation, the post-65s, are the beneficiaries of the wisdom and foresight of our forefathers which have raised Singapore from the Third to First-World status. This is a remarkable achievement which second and third generation leaders have consolidated. No country is perfect, but Singaporeans are grateful for the peace and prosperity we have enjoyed and hope to keep enjoying. We are not oblivious to the challenges that continue to face the Government and people of our country. Yes, we need talented leaders to lead us into our collective future. In addition, we need a people who have a vision of what it means to be a Singaporean. What is 'Singapore'? We are not just a company, we are a nation. But we need a vision of what this means because without a vision, the people perish, they cannot gel together, they become selfish, cynical, alienated atomistic individuals preoccupied with their own concerns. Our founding fathers had such a vision. On 9th August 1965, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew issued the Proclamation of Singapore's independence on behalf of the people and Government of Singapore. This stated that "Singapore shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society." These are worthy ideals we should constantly revisit.”
“This may not always be effective or transparent enough to allay public concerns. In terms of accountability, the question that may be asked is: how can you write your own salary without an external auditor? In this respect, I commend the proposals of various hon. Members to have an independent panel to review the issue of benchmarking salaries. This would promote accountability and, in involving non-Government sectors of society, could inject a participatory element which strengthens democratic governance. To further promote transparency, the Government could widely disseminate how the performance of each individual Ministry is evaluated. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise a question whether the wrong message is being sent to my generation, the post-1965 generation, in conceptualising reward and structuring incentive in primarily monetary terms. Are we not sending the wrong message in assuming that throwing money after a problem will solve it? In conveying an overwhelming market-oriented ethos, are we not discounting intangible values which are essential for nation building? The underlying ideology of profit maximisation which can breed a fixation on self-interest stands at odds with attributes of selflessness and dedication to the common good. Ms Denise Phua cautioned against the volatile mix of power and excessive emphasis on materialism yesterday. I concur entirely with her sentiments. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton famously opined; wedded to a lust for lucre, the danger to the common weal increases exponentially. Corrupt governors wielding the coercive power of the state can wreak havoc on the body politic.”
“This may not be entirely accurate in so far as assurances that the Administrative Service is no longer an iron rice bowl, as under-achievers may be asked to leave, is realised. It may be argued that political office-holders are accountable to the shareholders of Singapore Inc., to Singapore citizens, who can exercise the sanction of the ballot box through their votes every five years or so. If this is the case, then it may be said that Ministers do not enjoy guaranteed long-term jobs, which is a risk associated with the nature of political office. Elections are, however, a blunt tool for sanctioning under-performing political leaders. They are periodic rather than continuous checks. Voters may still support a Government as a whole even though it is concerned with a few errant or under-performing Ministers. To be frank, to say the electorate can judge the Government through elections is a bit of a fiction. The ultimate sanction provided by a system of parliamentary democracy is that the incumbent government can be replaced by an alternative government. For this to work, a sizeable parliamentary opposition is needed. The current one is Lilliputian in size, though not necessarily in heart. The current political system favours the continuation of a dominant party state. Despite these sterling efforts of the hon. Members for Hougang and Potong Pasir and NCMP, Ms Sylvia Lim, I do not think we will see a functioning bipartisan system anywhere in the short to medium term. This may be cause for rejoicing or mourning, depending on your political affiliations. However, this means that the task of holding under-performing or incompetent Ministers accountable falls on the Prime Minister and the internal self-regulatory mechanisms of the ruling political party.”
“A person earning about $2,000 a month may find it hard to grasp the need to increase the pay packets of "million dollar" Ministers who currently take home about $40,000 per month, or Elected MPs who receive almost $12,000 per month. There is an emotional disconnect in this respect, particularly when the green-eyed monster of envy rears its head. The emotional disaffection can impair the health of a representative democracy where MPs, as the people's representatives, are supposed to understand the struggles of the common man and to represent such concerns. Wealth can be a socially divisive factor, spawning discontent and alienation, particularly where the salaries of Government leaders are well above the national average. Sir, the fact that this emotive topic is being freely debated in Parliament today shows that we value transparency, a facet of good governance which guards against corruption. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to highlight another facet of good governance, which is accountability. This comprises two elements. First, the ability to measure whether an office-holder is performing well or badly in qualitative and quantitative terms. KPIs or other benchmarks are necessary to evaluate the Government's progress, or regress. This is relevant to how much Ministers and civil servants should be paid and a performance-based variability component to salaries may facilitate this. Second, there needs to be a sanction for poor performance, as in the private sector, where poor performance could cost the loss of a job. Some may argue that while Ministers and top civil servants enjoy the rewards of the private sector, they do not suffer such risks of the disciplining force of the market.”
“The new orthodoxy is the need to pay Ministers well to ensure a constant supply of good governors who would perpetuate good government and high economic growth. It posits that just as a CEO determines the profitability of a company, so too a country's economic well-being is contingent on high ministerial calibre. The analogy between a company and a country is imperfect. What serves the corporate world well does not necessarily translate into what will serve good government well. Although our country has been described as Singapore Inc. and Hotel Singapore, it is more than that - it is our home. A home evokes affection because it carries intangible qualities of warmth, security, space, which a hotel, no matter how luxurious, can never fully possess. Sir, I now move to the second paradigm of the moral leadership argument. The argument from moral authority seizes upon the idea of intangible virtues. It is motivated by the fear that the market-based wages model will attract the wrong people who are motivated primarily by money rather than a desire to serve the public. There is an expectation of some degree of altruism from governors. While this may be criticised as naive utopianism, the alternative, a cynicism and total capitulation to materialism, is itself tragic in sounding the death knell for the ideals we need to temper our selfish excesses. The existing concern and perceptions that Ministers and top civil servants are being paid too much have been exacerbated by two things: one, the impending GST hikes and, two, the adequacy of public assistance for the most needy in our society, some of whom reportedly eat only one meal a day. This plugs into the existing unhappiness generated by the growing levels of income disparity in Singapore.”
“Let me say from the outset that it is a given that our leaders and those who execute their policies should be paid well. This is a safeguard against corruption. A corruption-free government is foundational to the well-being of a nation. The difficulty is to find the right criteria and mechanism for determining just remuneration and reward. I agree that Ministers and top civil servants should not be expected to make "unreasonable financial sacrifices" to be in public service. The devil is in the details - how is this quantified? Hon. Members have voiced reservations questioning whether pegging salaries to the top earners in six private-sector professions is the best approach. Does it achieve the desired end? Does it communicate the right message? Are public and private-sector jobs comparable? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill, as the revised annual wage bills would constitute just 0.022% of the total economic output? Mr Speaker, Sir, I will now turn to the market argument. The logic of the market perspective is the need to be competitive so that top talents can be attracted to serve the Government. This would facilitate the political renewal of the incumbent Government and ruling political Party. The chosen measure is to benchmark public-sector salaries against top private-sector salaries to position the Government to compete for the same or overlapping pool of talents by closing the salary gap. The dominant motif of this camp is to be realistic and its chief tool is that of financial incentives or market-based wages. This rejects as flawed the conventional wisdom that Ministers should only be paid a modest wage because they do public service.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to speak in this debate. The arguments raised by Members of this House over the past two days have reminded me of the words from a Beatles song that goes: "The best things in life are free, but you can give them to the birds and bees, I want money. That is what I want." These lyrics, courtesy of Lennon and McCartney, starkly capture the two competing paradigms which have driven this debate over salary revisions for political office-holders and civil servants. Firstly, we have the argument from the perspective of the market. Secondly, the argument from the imperative that public servants must possess moral authority, which might be undermined by the perception that they are receiving salaries pegged at too high a level. The problem is identified as the need to attract and retain the best talents to helm positions of political leadership and to staff the elite Administrative Service. The method adopted is to pay top dollar for the best and brightest. Of course, the salary revisions have a broader reach and also affect the administrative rank-and-file and teachers. I applaud the measures taken to recognise and reward them for their significant contributions to society. My remarks today are primarily directed to the issue of salary revisions in relation to Cabinet Ministers and top civil servants of Superscale grade, as this has been the focal point of public interest and debate amongst our citizens, netizens, denizens and other interested observers of our small island. Both the Cabinet and the Administrative Service bear the onerous task of crafting and implementing sound, far-sighted national policies on which our national welfare depends. Diligent effort and wisdom are obviously required.”
“Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether, in his opinion, he discerns a shift among ASEAN states in their willingness to raise human rights concerns with each other and whether this is a qualification to the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs. Also, Singapore, as a responsible member of the international community, do we have any concerns about the human rights practices of other ASEAN members and are we willing to raise these with them, or do human rights issues remain within the OB markers for international affairs?”