There is plan to increase the Prime Minster’s salary in Singapore by 60% to over S$3.1m. The high salaries have created an uproar there. The government defends its position by saying that it wants its Ministers to be paid like top executives. Predictably Lee Kuan Yew, former Prime Minster and now Ministerial Mentor, has defended this move. His comments are instructive. Some extracts…
Defending the system… Lee Kuan Yew painted a horrifying picture of a Singapore governed by ministers who earn no more than ministers anywhere else. “Your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is,” he said, “your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people’s countries.”
Others have stated that… “To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains.”
The minister mentor brushed aside concerns like that. “Those are admirable sentiments,” he said. “But we live in a real world.”
This controversy made a light bulb go off in my mind. First, I found the uproar reminiscent of the furor created by egregious salaries of some US CEOs. Then I realized that, perhaps, the best way to understand Singapore is to view it as a mega-corporation with a live-in workplace. It doesn’t have citizens, it has lifetime employees. These folks are like the highly-paid workers on oil-rigs. You get great food, company-provided accommodation, hard work and predictable hours, and company-sanctioned entertainment. Of course, there are some things that you can’t do like smoking on oil-rigs (or chewing gum in Singapore), watching porn on company (nah Singapore) internet, or criticizing the “employer” on your blog. Maybe you have fewer freedoms that you would have in Australia but then the pay is good on this company island.
Thinking of Singapore as a giant well-run company island isn’t that far-fetched. Singapore has 2.3m workers (out of a population of ~4.4m). This is no too different from Wal-Mart; it has 1.8m employees. Singapore’s 2005 GDP was ~$125b in PPP terms. Wal-mart’s revenues in 2006 were $312b.
I like the efficiency of Singapore. But I hope its concept of running a State like a company doesn’t become a harbinger of times to come.
Having lived, studied and worked in Singapore I think that the analogy you have made between the Singapore Government and a large corporation is quite accurate.
Regarding your final point: Although it does seem harsh at first (running the State like a corporate entity), I would like to hope that it doesn’t happen the other way around! i.e. Companies being inspired by Singapore style governance instead.
e.g. Imagine a company forcing you to invest part of your salary in itself or calling upon you without notice to serve in military drills!
(Compulsory Central Provident Fund contribution .
Singapore has conscription for all males from 18-49.)
Sharad,
My good friend Tanmoy may agree with you on your analogy - but I beg to differ.
Most people outside Singapore view it as a high-paying workplace. It is also a hyper expensive city. When you made your grand comparisons with Walmart and the Oil Rig (uh??), you forgot that the idiot on the oil rig has nothing to do with his life. He gets a 3-month break in a year to go back to his home country to meet his family - once a year.
Tanmoy lived in a university campus while he was in Singapore. How expensive can that be?
So, a basic tip for you - if the basic expenses are high - the pay will be higher. An apple costs 55 cents. a tetrapack of milo is 2 dollars. Even Prudent living leads to a minimum electricty-water bill of 75 bucks. Suppose you forgot your key at home and locked yourself out - the locksmith charges 80 bucks to open your door. You do the math my friend.
The is a county made of people… unlike your exaggerated comparison.
I work in a 100% Singaporean company. I am the only Indian in my division. There are no Caucasians in my company. 95% of the folks live in public housing (HDBs-owned).
I talked to a few people about the points raised by Tanmoy as well.
Here are the findings of my dip-stick test:
a) Singaporean men feel that the 2 and half years spent in the army has done them more good than ever. They believe that this is the place where boys become men. And most men find their life-long buddies here. They also realise that their tiny island nation is surrounded by muslim countries. One needs to be patriotic to their country. And these guys are.
b) Singaporeans are very very cool about CPF. They know its for thir benefit. You may not know, but the CPF can be used to buy a house. Thats what most people do. And that is why it was started in the first place. The HDB system was Singapore’s contribution to the world. Margaret Thatcher copied the system and attributed the success in England to her good friend Harry (MM Lee).
c) Last: the minister’s pay. The uproar you are refering to is actually blown out of proportion. A few stray incidents where the young people want to make a point. Funny thing is that these kids were born in a modernized Singapore where all they have seen is urban development and a great lifestyle. They question for the heck of questioning. They don’t know what corruption can do to a country. Overall, Singaporeans are comforatble with the payscales of their ministers because this guarantees ZERO corruption and undying commitment to excellence.
Where else in the world can you be 100% sure about the safety of your family. You think Europeans come here only for the money?
Hi Arun,
You make some good points about the quality of life in Singapore. However you don’t address my main argument that the relationship between Singapore government and its people is more like that between GE and its employees than between a typical State and its citizens. Lee Kuan Yew’s comments clearly indicate that he views the State-citizen relationship as being similar to the employer-employee relationship. This is an interesting situation that, perhaps, works for many Singaporeans. But would it be desireable to see this model extended to other places? I’m not so sure about that.
Sharad,
It is not necessary to replicate (or rather extend) a model that has worked for one country in another. Singapore’s size, population, and strategic location demands it be governed in a unique way.
If there is another country that can match the geographic and socio-economic variables of Singapore- apple to apple - then it may and can be tranplanted there - but will it work (?) or is it necessary (?).
MM Lee’s comments have not compared the relationship of state and citizen to that of Company-employee. Thats your inference.
MM lee did say that the protesters should be subject to a good dose of incompetent government so that they realize what they have. I am from India - and I think I know what he means by it.
All they are doing with this exercise is making the ministerial job as lucrative and accountable as that of the private sector. To attract the best talent. To keep it corruption-free.
The last time a minister was charged with corruption, he did not wait to go to court - but commited suicide. This was nearly 10 years ago.
By the way, you can chew gum here. I do.
And I know guys who thrive on porn in Singapore… students especially - from India.
Interestingly today’s IHT carries a letter from Rey Buono of Thailand that makes the exact same point that I did. Here is what it says…
“The article “In Singapore, it pays to work in government” (April 10) affirms what should be obvious: The island is a corporate, rather than a political, entity. If you think of Singapore as a multinational company strategically positioned at the intersection of sea and air lanes, engaged in providing other multinational corporations solid infrastructure, excellent security, a well trained work force and value-added services - the place makes sense.”
It’s funny that you title your blog post Singapore, Inc. cause many in Singapore use the term. Having studied and worked in Singapore, I attest to what Sharad has to say. The bottom line is that it works.