Nothing Ado about the ST Forum; Much ado about a Wage freeze

Here is a rather good balanced letter in the ST Forum. In fact the writer has echoed my thoughts far better than i would have expressed them.

FOLLOWING the debates on ministerial pay, one gets the impression that, like the recent anti-smoking advertising campaign, the Government is using 'scare tactics' to justify the latest round of pay hikes.
While one cannot dispute the fact that Singapore has done well over the years and that our ministers have been very well paid, such an association does not imply a causal relationship.
The people have been warned about the number of bad governments there are in the world, but is there any concrete proof to demonstrate that high pay equals good government and, more importantly, that low pay equals bad government?
In addition, high pay cannot necessarily buy or guarantee integrity, as the National Kidney Foundation scandal and Enron case amply show.
Also, extrapolations from the business world have their limits. Much has been said about the fact that a CEO is constantly being scrutinised whereas a minister only has to stand for election once every five years. I would like to add that public accountability may be further diminished by the fact that some MPs get to 'walk over' into Parliament on the back of uncontested GRC wards, election after election.
It has also been argued that a competitive pay package is required to attract the right talent with the right 'heart'. I note that the medical profession is not included in the six benchmark professions, yet every year there is no shortage of students applying for medical school. Surely this is an indication that there are many talented Singaporeans who are willing to forego better pay to serve society.
The last election gives me faith that there are many more public-spirited citizens from all professions and walks of life out there.
Lastly, I applaud the Prime Minister's decision to freeze his pay for the next five years, and his pledge to donate any pay rise to charity. He is truly a man who leads by example, and I hope that the rest of the ministers and MPs, especially those who have voiced their concerns about the benchmark, will demonstrate their 'heart' and follow suit.
Siow Tian Rui

There is currently a storm in Aaron's blog regarding the issue of LHL donating his pay increase to charity. http://aaron-ng.info/blog/pm-lee-leads-by-example.html#comment-14623

Basically to simplify matters, its an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. There are many who have said that Mr Lee Hsien Loong is merely doing this to pull wool over people's eyes and to try to regain moral capital. The fact that the ST stated that he would freeze his pay for 5 years does make it rather compelling.

However this brings us to another issue. If Mr Lee was some tycoon who had no links to the government, would there be such accusations? The answer is most probably no. In this instance the fact that he is linked to the government does tend to cast this gesture as a self serving one, for the sake of capital rather than out of any altriustic purpose. The fact that the media and some PAP fellas have started to give bouquets would only make matters worse.

That begs the question; how can one be in possession of the knowledge that Mr Lee is doing this for the purposes above? To put it in a simpler way, what makes Mr Lee, for lack of a better word, "guilty"?

Unfortunately there is not much "evidence" to prove the above notion. Using legal standards, he is "innocent" until proven "guilty" and as there is reasonable doubt about his actual intentions it would be premature to actually start levelling accusations against him. There is a possibility that what is happening is as Aaron has put it, 以小人之心，度君子之腹. True while the fact that PAP has always been paranoid about perceived threats and has taken action to counter it works against it in this instance, it would be easier perhaps to ask oneself why do we not give him the benefit of the doubt? Does being a PM and the son of LKY make one less worthy of being given the benefit of doubt?

To end of, lets take the example of a person i respect, the late David Saul Marshall. He was renowned for his humanitarian views and of the fact that he would defend those who faced the "Date with Darshan". In fact he did not ask for any payment from the defendant during the Nonis Trial and he also charged the poor people 1 dollar for tax purposes.

However as a lawyer he had a steep price. Apparently you had to pay upfront $3000 just to consult him. So if one applies the principle that Mr Lee is doing it for political purposes to boost his reputation, then can the same not be said of Mr Marshall, that he took those cases just to boost his reputation and gain renown? And if not, on what grounds do we apply a different standard to Mr Lee's action?