Real Politik in Singapore’s Meritocratik Leadership — Ministerial Pay as an Indicator of Singapore’s Political Meritocracy

Roxanne
7 min readApr 29, 2019

--

Meritocracy. Ah, what a nebulous term to even visualise!

During the class before the Reading Week, Prof. Burke held a brainstorming session about how we could go about defining meritocracy and what would be suitable proxy indicators. Notably, in the long discussion that our group table (comprising of Joanna, Rong Yi, Daryl, Stephenie, Dr. Burke and I) we gained interesting insights to how difficult it is access data in Singapore. We had discussed on ends how meritocracy had differing outcomes across ethnic groups and yet while this was a widely known perception, there was little data available due to the data’s possible sensitivities. (But, amazingly, Rong Yi did a discourse analysis exactly about this which I learned a lot from :) ) Which meant that… I was back to square one.

Feeling a little stuck, I decided to take a look at what my other classmates have done to gain some inspiration and see what other angles and perspectives I could provide. After all, the goal of a class centered on independent learning is that we all bring different insights to the table, and that’s how we learn from one another! :)

I realised that a common thread around the Meritocracy-themed visualisations is the connection between meritocracy and income. For example, Wei Qi’s self-collected survey demonstrated the importance of wealth and social capital across perceived income groups, then there was Zach’s analysis on disparities between degree salaries, and Joanna’s analysis on the Short-to-Medium-Term Financial Assistance distributed in Singapore (FY 2009–2017). So what other nuances could I add to the table?

Well, here’s where the interdisciplinary connections that this class intends to help me draw gives me a little helping hand! :) I remembered that in a separate class in USP I had learnt about how Singapore was a political meritocracy and wondered if there was a way to visualise that! Bear in mind that the meritocracy discussed below is limited to elected public officials and demonstrated in terms of political recruitment and advancement in political office, and I will explain why so below.

First and Foremost, What is a Political Meritocracy?

“Political meritocracy is the idea that a political system should aim to select leaders with above average ability to make morally informed political judgments. That is, political meritocracy has two key components: (1) the political leaders have superior ability and virtue; and (2) the selection mechanism is designed to choose such leaders.” (Bell 2013) What this simply means is that a political meritocracy presumes those with innate and demonstrated talent will be an elite. (Bellows 2013)

Political scientist Dahl had concluded that political systems are characterized by ‘uneven control of political resources’ (1991, p.52) This uneven control of political resources is justified in a political meritocracy as a simple product of an utilitarian formula that asserts those who purposefully contribute to a system’s ‘well being’ will receive the greater rewards.

It is this conception of meritocracy that has been a central feature to Singapore’s political system. Notably, the country’s ruling government has even modified the democratic process in order to facilitate the election of these pre-selected candidates in their continuous bid to advocate the institutionalisation of meritocracy into the political system. (Bell 2013) As noted by Teo, the continued legacy of the “values, institutions and processes” (Teo 2017) in Singapore’s political system can be attributed to the institutionalisation of an elitist-based leadership selection process which has enabled the PAP to incorporate LKY’s “deeply-held governance principles of meritocracy, vulnerability and elite governance.” (Low 2014, p.168)

So what are the implications of Singapore being a political meritocracy?

The system ensures a self-perpetuating cycle of ideology via the party’s proactive recruitment of people from the government sector to form the majority of Singapore’s political leadership. There exists a continuity in not just leadership competence but also similarities in mindsets and values from the previous leaderships era.

Lee Kuan Yew summarises this standpoint aptly; “My colleagues and I have institutionalised honesty, integrity and meritocracy into the systems we have created. Each generation of leaders has the duty to recruit the people of integrity, ability and commitment as their successors.” (cited in Rodan 2009, 192)

In the 2018 election of office-bearers in the Central Executive Committee, Heng Swee Keat was selected for the position of Assistant Secretary-General, the precursor for the role of Prime Minister. Other 4G leaders highlighted in the years proceeding 2015 were Minister Ong Ye Kung and Minister Chan Chun Sing. Notably, the leading contenders and most of the 4G leaders come from the public service. (Han 2019).

There is thus clear evidence for the enduring meritorious technocrat-politician legacy since LKY’s transition to Goh based on the supposed premise that “the best and brightest should be in politics and are in politics” (Ho 2000, p.34)

As Mauzy writes, “political succession is the supreme expression of the PAP’s belief in elitism, meritocracy and planning.” (Mauzy cited in Singh 2017, p.89)

Additionally, critics have nuanced the pronounced team ethos present in Singapore’s upcoming leadership as presenting an “ever-lurking danger” (Han 2019) of in-breeding “neo-liberal groupthink” (George 2017, p.24). Hence, the interest in who governs is significant as it gives a picture of the normative beliefs like meritocracy that have far-reaching impact in shaping the policy outputs of our politics.

Then, what are the indicators of Singapore being a political meritocracy?

Source: Made by me

I would suggest the following two indicators:

  • Ministerial pay
  • Elite education backgrounds

Source: https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/does-our-prime-minister-get-paid-up-to-r

Why Ministerial Pay as an Indicator:

The meticulous leadership renewal process’ objective is to recruit a government cohort from among Singapore’s best and brightest. Singapore’s long-standing, and almost ideological strategy, is its high compensation for these high flyers, and these increases have been in place since 1972. Singapore’s elected officials and top civil servants are probably the highest paid in the world. This superior pay scheme has even been justified in a 1994 White Paper under the direction of Goh Chok Tong! (Bellows 2013, p.37) Pay for ministers and top civil servants are pegged to the compensation that might be earned in top private sector positions. The MR4 Minister’s annual salary of $1.1 million includes bonuses. If the minister doesn’t do well — and if the economy doesn’t do well — he may get well below $1.1 million.

The data visualisation that I made shows how well the top civil servant / Minister in Singapore gets paid, nearly double of all the other 9 in the top 10 rankings.

Why Elite Education Background as an Indicator

(not selected for this assignment due to difficulties in defining elite education background)

Typically, elites in the Singapore context are defined first by academic excellence, and then occupational achievements. (Bellows, 2013) However, I note that data for this is difficult to analyse as there is no consensus on the definition of an elite education institution — which can range from local pre-tertiary institutions or the likes of OxBridge.

If I have time, I’ll think about working this list of schools that Ministers have went to in a visualisation, just for my own fun! :) https://discoversg.com/2016/01/19/a-look-at-where-singaore-ministers-attended/

Conclusion

So having justified why I chose ministerial pay as my indicator for Singapore as a political meritocracy, I will then discuss how viable this system is in the long run for Singapore.

Notably, the government has noted that the decision to raise the pay of top civil servants, especially that of ministers in 2007, has struck a nerve among Singaporeans. Yet, the government still stresses the definitive importance of recruitment: ‘While a competitive renumeration would seem to be a necessity these days, it is of the ultimate assurance of good government. There is also the issue of finding the right people’ (Petir, 2007) indicating that high ministerial pays are here to stay. In 2017, a review of salaries for the president, prime minister, speaker, deputy speaker, political appointment holders and members of parliament were conducted made the point for a 9% increase.

https://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/attachments/2018/03/02/artpay.pdf

Given that the Singapore Government’s recruitment processes has also let in a similar like of mindsets, and her enduring position of sticking to the ideologies that has served them well, it is likely that our high ministerial pays and political meritocracy is here to stay. Singaporean citizens are a people who are known for choosing the same ruling party for the last nearly 50 years based on performance legitimacy. Hence, if the civil service continues to do well, and Singaporeans continue to be satisfied with the Ministerial performance, the political system’s love for meritocracy is unlikely to change.

References Cited:

Bell, D. (2013).Meritocracy in politics: S’pore’s influence on China. The Straits Times. https://www.asiaone.com/asia/ritocracy-politics-spores-influence-china

Bellows, T. J. (2009) Meritocracy and the Singapore Political System, Asian Journal of Political Science, 17:1, p. 24–44

Gov.Sg (2018). Does our Prime Minister get paid up to $4.5 million a year?. https://www.gov.sg/factually/content/does-our-prime-minister-get-paid-up-to-r

Han, F.K. (2019, Jan 8). The 4G question: Whither exceptional Singapore?. The Straits Times. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/the-4g-question-whither-exceptional-singapore

Singh, B. (2017). Understanding Singapore Politics, Singapore World Scientific, 2017), pp. 1–150.

--

--