Assement Article Response 2

Pub Date: 13/04/2007 Pub: ST Page: 27
Column: FRIDAY MATTERS
Day: Friday

Edition: FIRST
Headline: Basis of govt-people ties shifting – from moral to
transactional?
By: CHUA MUI HOONG

Page Heading: INSIGHT
Subject: POLITICAL/GENERAL NEWS^GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS^CIVIL SERVICE
CORPORATE/INDUSTRIAL NEWS^LABOUR/PERSONNEL ISSUES^WAGES
Source:
SPH

FRIDAY MATTERS
BY CHUA MUI HOONG
SENIOR WRITER
HEARD the one about Senator Hillary Clinton giving up her presidential bid in
America?

She's coming to Singapore – because the pay is better.

This joke, and similar ones about White House officials angling for jobs at the

Istana, circulated this week, as Parliament debated a move to raise salaries of
civil servants and ministers.
Jokes provide an avenue for the body politic to let off steam. Unpack their
hidden meaning, and a wealth of latent sentiments emerge.

As the three-day parliamentary debate on pay showed, there is a growing sense
in the Singapore body politic that public service is a misnomer: With pay
packets explicitly pegged to that of top private sector executives, ministers

are performing less a public "service", or even a public "duty", than just
another job.
Having watched debate on the issue since 1994, I was struck by the way so many
MPs in this debate argued that it was unreasonable to expect ministers to make

big financial sacrifices to take up public office.
This was the majority viewpoint in the People's Action Party (PAP), forcefully
articulated by its ministers and MPs.
Only a minority of MPs (mostly opposition and Nominated MPs) warned about the

erosion of the sense of public service if pay was pegged to head honchos'
salaries – a point of view the PAP leadership disagreed with.
Certainly there is no simplistic, linear relationship between pay forgone and

level of moral authority. A lowly paid incompetent or dishonest official has no
claim to moral standing.
But as I have noted in a previous commentary, to claim the compensation pegged
to the most successful in the market, and yet expect the moral adulation of

citizens for performing a highly paid job, is to want to have one's cake and to
eat it too.
Even Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong thinks that forgoing his own salary
increases for five years and donating the money to charity raises his moral

standing to explain the pay hikes to the people.
Changing social compact
THE debate over ministers' pay this year shows Singapore at the cusp of change:
transiting from a more traditional, hierarchical society which views its

leaders as moral superiors making a sacrifice for the nation, to a more
transactional relationship where political leaders are expected to be held to
account for their performance in return for market-based pay.

To use terms from political philosophy, the social compact is changing.
Those who subscribe to the first feel outraged, even betrayed, at the thought
of ministers who may think a $1 million pay packet isn't enough and want $2

million.
Many Singaporeans, especially among the pre-Independence generation accustomed
to viewing political leaders as their betters, belong to this group.
For this group, the pay issue will always fester: a reminder that society, and

its norms, and notions of service and duty, have changed.
I may be over-generalising, but I think the post-Independence generation, to
which I belong, view the relationship between government and governed less in

moral terms, and more from a "rational-legal" point of view (to use sociologist
Max Weber's characterisation) where governing authority is based on law and
resides in the will of the people expressed in elections.

The foundation of the relationship between government and people is shifting:
from a moral one between a superior parent figure and a child, to a more
transactional, contractual relationship.
Moral philosopher John Rawls' influential A Theory Of Justice describes three

stages of moral development. The first is the "morality of authority", when
children who lack independent reasoning or means, are subject to the
legitimate, loving authority of parents.
The parent has the duty to provide care, make good decisions on the child's

behalf and behave in a way worthy of the child's love and admiration. From the
child, "the prized virtues are obedience, humility and fidelity to authority".
When a child grows up, he learns the "morality of association", forming

attachments to peers and groups, and agreeing to live by their rules. At this
stage, he is expected to honour obligations and duties, and expects others to
behave likewise.
If I may be allowed a conceit in applying this to Singapore, the electorate

today is like a maturing child, outgrowing the confines of the first morality
based on authority, to accepting one based on association.
In this second phase, reciprocity is a key value. Voters pay taxes which fund

the government. In return, they expect paid officials to perform, and to be
sanctioned if they do not.
When we understand Singapore society in this transition, then we are not
surprised at the lexicon used in this week's debate on pay issues, when MPs

spoke of publishing key performance indicators and making public how ministers
have performed.
In Rawls' rubric, there is a third phase, the "morality of principles", when
people strive to do what is right and good for their own sake, not because

authority or peers encourage them to. This group includes normal people with
consciences who strive to do the right thing, and a separate category of
superior moral beings.
The morality for the latter group – "the saint and the hero" – includes virtues

of "benevolence, a heightened sensitivity to the feelings and wants of others,
and a proper humility and unconcern with self".
The Old Guard typified this. But as PAP ministers and MPs noted expressly in
this week's debate, it is unrealistic to expect ministers to be such "saints"

nowadays.
Nor does my generation have such expectations.
Different expectations
WE UNDERSTAND that those who enter political office, have done their sums. They
weigh the loss of privacy and the opportunity cost of their time, against the

psychic satisfaction of doing good and the attraction of power and prestige.
The $2 million salary helps remove pay out of the equation, so it is neither an
obstacle nor inducement to be in public office.
Having made his calculations, he takes the plunge and gets a top market-based

wage. Having paid top dollar, citizens demand top-notch performance. It's a
quid pro quo arrangement. Talk of sacrifice on $2-million-a-year salaries rings
hollow to many.
If he does not perform, no amount of talk about sacrifice will endear him to

taxpayers. If he does perform, he earns the respect due to any top-performing
executive in his job.
But the kind of reverence and moral authority the Old Guard got from our
parents' generation? That's only for "saints" who demonstrate a superior kind

of selfless morality in public service.
The social compact is changing, and a younger generation has different
expectations of those in public office.
muihoong@sph.com.sg

Category: Political/Societal Issue

Summary

Chua Mui Hoong postulates an interesting thesis, that the relationship between the government and Singapore society has progressed(?) from a moral one to a transactional one. She makes several points, including how many lawmakers have stated that “it was unreasonable to expect ministers to make big financial sacrifices to take up public office”. It is further corroborated by another article I perused, written by George Yeo, Foreign Affairs Minister. It was his belief that though “paying right”(ie. Equal to those top-earners in the market) will “obviously not” stop corruption, “not paying right will certainly encourage it”. This seems to be the main motivator for paying top dollar; for top-notch performances. From the furore whipped up through the debates over ministerial salary, she observes that “Singapore (is) at the cusp of change”, from one which views its leaders(government) as moral superiors, to a more “transactional” one, where they are superior in performance only, for superior pay. This transition has also added a new meaning to the word “public service”. She feels that it has become a misnomer.

She then uses John Rawl’s theory of moral development as a child, as an analogy to Singapore society now. She likens the electorate to be maturing, from “morality of authority” to “morality of association”, meaning, a quid pro quo relationship, where reciprocity is key.

Her next point is that of a different generational mindset; the “post-independence generation” as opposed to “pre-independence generation” mindset. She posits that the younger generation holds a more “rational-legal” view, whereas the older one still view their leaders as people who have made sacrifices, for public good.

She ends off with an aptly reworded thesis statement , that “ a younger generation has different expectations of those in public office”

Reflection

I feel that the issue raised is particularly pertinent in today’s society. Has society really changed? Have we become more money-grubbing and trying to stretch that dollar? Has pragmatism and this type of “equality” prevailed over morality? If what the author posits is true, then it is not just the relationship which is transactional. Only a “transaction-alist” society will have a transactional relationship.

This diminishing value of morality vis-à-vis pragmatism heralds a bleak prospect indeed…

For example, the Italian Prime Minister’s request for a Singapore embassy has been denied, until trade volume between Singapore and Italy balloons 8-fold to $40 billion.

Indeed even on the governmental side, reciprocity is highly valued.

In RI too, students get a superb environment for development, in turn, they have to win prizes for the school, capture glory for the school and participate in ORA. To get good marks, I need good effort. Reciprocity seems to be all ok, that is, on the surface. However, it really brings out the uglier aspect of us, we don’t call charity hotlines for nothing, there is always the lure of a prize/car.

The writer’s opinion is that Singapore is already shifting, at the “cusp”. However, I think that Singapore has long shifted over, for at least a decade already. After Singapore’s independence, after it got on track to prosperity and peace, people have already been shifting. The tumultuous years, replaced with lulling peace and the hard-headed pragmatism dogmatically enforced by the government have already largely influenced society. You chew gum, fine, just get fined.

However, things are loosening up, the highly flexible Community Courts have been set up, there is a discourse on whether homosexuals should be allowed, F1 races have been given the green light, casinos are slated for construction; Singapore has indeed become more liberal.

The writer’s point on “morality of principles”, where doing the right thing is the only thing to do, is thought-provoking. Is it really “unrealistic” in today’s world? The Old Guard who “typified” this is already fading, Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San has all passed away. Has there been a modern “Mother Theresa” figure?

However, in today’s world, there is no more apartheid, no more world wars(yet), philanthropist foundations and trusts have sprouted up, a recent case would be that of the Temasek Trust and Foundation, not forgetting Bill Gates own foundation, the World Bank., IMF, even J.K Rowling! She has donated an amount larger than $495,000 to a $3 million reward fund for a missing British Girl. There is certainly no expectation for reciprocity here.

I really can’t decide. Has the world got better or worse since the Old Guard? I need to study and comprehend more before coming to my own conclusion. Myself, I have donated to charity a few times, but always for something that benefits myself too, am I too materialistic? Or worse, selfish? I don’t think I’ll ever know, till the day I reflect, inwardly.

(487) word count.

************************************************************************************