Ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country...

Reply to Edward in YPAP blog:

The question becomes whether we want the best people to do the job. It is not a question of leaders being materialistic but more one of whether we should pay them their dues.

I want great leaders too.

But I think that a person who do not want the job; a person who needs the political selection process circumvented to roll him/her in on a red carpet; a person who would reject the opportunity to serve his nation because a million dollar salary represent a pay cut he/she can't accept - such people DO NOT represent the best.

We need intelligent, gifted people. We need passionate inspired people who have a genuine wish to contribute. We need people who value what they are doing for the country.

What’s the use of the smartest if their hearts are not in what they are doing?

The comparison with other countries is irrelevant. Do we want a situation where only the aristocracy and landed gentry are willing to step forward? Or worse still, the opportunists who are unable to make it in the real commercial world? Just recently, a cabinet secretary in the US asked to be allowed to step down because he could no longer afford to do national service. I personally would not want Singapore to be in such a situation.

The comparison with other countries is most relevant. Are the government of NZ, Netherlands and Switzerland all aristocracy and landed gentry? Are they opportunists?

The fact is, they are paid on par with political leaders of first world countries - which are a tiny fraction of what our leaders are paid. They produce excellent result - and they score as high or higher on incorruptibility. And they are far from living in abject poverty.

Instead of looking to the cheque book as the source of all solution - should we not study people who have managed to do well and ask the question of how did they manage to do it?

Also, Singaporeans males do NS, and I have seen countless cases of people who suffer financial loss to grub in the jungle to serve the nation. Here we pay our Ministers 1.2m and can they find the balls to come out and say that they need to step down because they cannot afford to do National service? PLEASE let whoever who say this go, because I can’t accept someone like that as my leader as well.

One fallacy here is firstly the assumption that one driven by passion is necessarily. going to do a better job than one driven by money. The other fallacy is that just because one is driven by passion, we would necessarily take advantage of him and not pay him his dues.

It is also easy to belittle the sacrifice that comes with holding public office being perpetually under public scrutiny.

One fallacy here is to assume that money is the primary and only reason why the PAP is having problems in recruiting talented people. Are there other reasons - like the way politics are run in Singapore; the inflexibility of the political process?

The part about public scrutiny is a joke - our media is one of the most muzzled and compliant amongst developed nations. When is the last time you see/hear of our leaders being hounded by the paparazzi?

Please rebute our comments points by points if you have the guts like Phillip Yeo.

Yea, please rebute my comments point by point too. Thank you very much.

Please give us prove of how much each minister will get if they are now in private sector. So far, we only have the word of the PM that our Ministers are worth double of what they are getting now.

I am unconvinced.

Everyone I spoke to is unconvinced too.

Perhaps the critics of the ministerial pay raise will be silenced once and for all if the government can come out with convincing prove that the Ministers are able to command such a high price if any of them "step down since they cannot afford to do national service"