Clearly, something is missing in our society: The notion of public service, sacrifice, and the relentless pursuit of ideals.

By Terence Lee

Sacrifice? What sacrifice? More memes at MemeNationsg.tumblr.com

After observing the debates centering around the ministerial pay cuts, I came to some conclusions about our political leaders — those whiter-than-white, elite of the elitist, thoroughly incorruptible members of the PAP.

Many of them are opportunistic corporate types who don’t see political office as public service, but merely a stepping stone to further enhance their burgeoning careers. To them, political representation not a calling, but simply a job that draws a pay.

You may think I sound harsh, even unfair.

But how else am I supposed to think?

Our most esteemed ministers conceded that we can’t draw top political talent if we can’t offer them a salary that is competitive with the private sector. A supposed political rising star and future Prime Minister gave us another bad analogy about food. And when the Worker’s Party MPs suggested lowering the salaries even further, howls of protest came from the PAP camp.

I can imagine how some of these well-to-do, whiter-than-whites are making back-of-the-envelope calculations and sweating. No more eating out at Three Michelin Star restaurants. No more dream yacht, at least for another year. No more vacationing in Mauritius (we’ll do Europe instead).

What a gut-wrenching struggle.

As for the lone dissenting voice from the PAP, Member-of-Parliament Denise Phua? She is a social worker who gave up a cushy corporate job. Just sayin’.

Seriously, is it really that hard?

I will concede that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong may be right — the ethos of sacrifice must be balanced with pragmatism. The cost of entering politics is high (poor Tin Pei Ling), and unless the pay scheme is sufficiently matched up with what the private sector CEOs earn, the elites will be deterred from entering politics.

I will further concede that the current ministerial pay proposal is a step in the right direction. The pay cut is somewhat substantial, although the formula of pegging salaries to the top 1,000 wage earners is sending the wrong message and should be revised.

However, what I cannot accept is Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean’s assertion that we cannot compare Singapore’s political salaries with other countries.

In what universe exactly do you live in, dear sir?

He suggests that the salaries of politicians in other countries contains many hidden perks, while Singapore practices total transparency. Okay, maybe a UK Cabinet Minister enjoys a free round of golf or two. But I challenge DPM Teo (or anyone) to prove that these hidden perks, when totaled up with the base salary, will tower over our Cabinet Ministers’ pay scheme.

And besides, many of our foreign counterparts have more complex job scopes. Lee Hsien Loong’s jaws would drop if he understands what President Barack Iron Balls Obama goes through on a daily basis: Stabilizing the Middle East, taming Iran, preventing an oil crisis, shoring up the US economy, fending off crazy Republicans, prodding Europe to address its debt woes, and preventing the End of the World.

Our Prime Minister, by comparison, has it easy.

What made my jaws drop, however, is how he justified his astronomical salary.

“The (US) president is paid less than me, yes,” Lee said during a debate in parliament Tuesday. ”But the high level residents in the White House travel in Air Force One, live in the White House and vacation in Camp David.”

“All they have to do is to turn up for an appearance, make a few remarks (and they receive) a hundred thousand dollars a time,” he added rather shamelessly.

Well, I think these perks are certainly justified if your job scope involves fighting two wars simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan. Throw in an extra vacation for nailing Osama. And some wrinkles from getting worried about being assassinated.

Our own Prime Minister couldn’t even keep Mas Selamat under wraps.

His excuses are enough to make my ears bleed. But on a deeper level, what this points to is a damning lack of moral leadership among the Singapore elite. I don’t hear of politicians in other countries complaining about their ridiculously low pay as compared to CEOs.

While PAP MP Denise Phua pointed out rather disapprovingly that Singaporeans expect our politicians to be like Superman, I don’t see anything wrong with that expectation.

Public service, in my opinion, embodies a set of ethos that rises above the materialism of our free-market economy. The art of politics, while involving a lot of grandstanding, is ultimately a battle of values. Which is why politicians are expected to carry themselves with moral dignity, and any sort of serious misbehavior is bound to doom one’s political career. The public scrutiny comes with the job.

So I grew a bit uncomfortable when people liken our politicians to CEOs, using the euphemism of ‘benchmarking’.

Our politicians should embody the notions of sacrifice and selflessness. Accepting a massive paycut from being a CEO of a major corporation to becoming a public servant is something that should be second-nature, not second-guessed.

If our Prime Minister has problems finding adequate talent from the elite class to make that sacrifice, which, by the way, is a sacrifice that still enables a more-than-comfortable standard of living, then there is something wrong with Singapore.

We’re a selfish, materialistic lot, and our top leaders are no different. Which is sad.

Recently, I had dinner with a bunch of social entrepreneurs. They are not rich brats who are fed with a silver spoon. Being decidedly middle class, they have to choose between idealism and pragmatism, a classic struggle.

They picked idealism.

For two years, they shuttled between Singapore and Philippines, helping Filipino university graduates find employment, at no pay.

Yes, no salary whatsoever.

You see, for a startup social enterprise like theirs, every penny counts. Their parents, of course, were unhappy. But they’ve managed to strike out a compromise, for now. Which means they have time to make their endeavors more financially sustainable.

I am impressed not so much by their business, but rather by the passion and sacrifice they put into the project to make it work.

So I wondered: If a bunch of middle-class kids can disregard finances and pursue their ideals, why can’t the wealthy elite do the same and join politics, even if it means leading a more humble, less flashy lifestyle?

And if our leaders aren’t willing to make the sort of sacrifices needed to pursue their ideals, what sort of example are they setting for the rest of us?