MP for Nee Soon GRC, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, has issued an apology for his remarks on ministerial salaries
Dr Lim Wee Kiak, the MP for Nee Soon GRC who stirred up controversy with his remarks on ministerial pay and “dignity”, has issued a retraction of his comments as well as an apology, admitting that his choice of words was “inappropriate” and “incorrect”.
His apology comes just one day after he claimed that his quote was “taken out of context”, and the remarks were made “jokingly”.
Nevertheless, the remarks sparked an uproar on the internet, with furious critics taking issue with the perceived arrogance and insensitivity of the choice of words. Many also questioned the logic in Dr Lim’s reasoning, seeing as other world leaders such as US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Chinese President Hu Jintao are still able to command substantial influence despite not earning as much as Singapore ministers.
In a post on his Facebook page, Dr Lim made the following statement:
|
Minister’s pay is a sensitive issue and is one that many are concerned about. I would like to clarify my comments made to Lianhe Zaobao and also reproduced in LianheWanBao
I made three fundamental points.
1. We need a balanced approach to the question of Ministerial pay.
2. Personally, I think we should not use pay and perks to attract capable people to come forward to serve. I agree with PM that there is a service to country element and an element of sacrifice expected for the Ministers by the public.
3. On the other hand, we need to take into consideration their responsibilities and job scope when we remunerate Ministers.
On further reflection, I agree that the example I quoted regarding a MICA minister meeting the heads of telcos and saying that there may be some loss of face if the minister’s salary is low is inappropriate and incorrect.
I withdraw those remarks and apologise for making them. Dignity cannot be and must not be measured purely in monetary terms.
|
The controversy began when Dr Lim defended the high salaries of cabinet ministers in an interview with the Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao. He said: “If the annual salary of the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts is only $500,000, it may pose some problems when he discusses policies with media CEOs who earn millions of dollars, because they need not listen to the minister’s ideas and proposals. Hence, a more reasonable payout would help to maintain some dignity.”
His remarks were widely criticised as being insensitive, arrogant and illogical, with many detractors pointing out that dignity should not be measured in monetary terms, highlighting that ministers derived their influence from their positions of authority, political power, personal integrity and conduct – not the size of their pay cheque.
Angry forumers on Sammyboy called for a boycott of Dr Lim’s clinic, Eagle Eye Centre, where he is a consultant opthamologist as well as chief executive officer. Others asked for Dr Lim to resign as an MP.
Socio-political blog Molitics said that Dr Lim’s remarks served to undermine Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s message that the PAP needed to change: “Thanks to the wonderful talents like (Tampines MP) Irene Ng and Dr Lim, the layers of make-up that Lee Hsien Loong has applied on the PAP leopard in order to conceal its callous spots are being washed away.”
It is thought that some of the public anger and resentment has subsided following Dr Lim’s apology. On Facebook, user Farouq Osman said: “OK, at least you’ve decided to apologise.” Another user, Bryan Ti, said: “That’s the spirit (of things). I think many were waiting for this. Could have been a tad earlier, and less the verbal meandering.”
–
Print media at the crossroads
theStar
4 June 2011
Insight Down South
By SEAH CHIANG NEE
Media monopoly and draconian laws continue in Singapore and carrying on in this way could mean an eventual demise of the print newspaper industry.
LOOKING back, it sounds a little silly but the Government once used to punish “misbehaving” newspapers by withholding their right to cover press conferences.
With modern thinking, it is only too easy now to sniff at this form of enforcing journalistic cooperation as self-defeating.
But in those bad old days, it was very real.
When it happened, the hapless journalists could merely shrug and ask each other: Who are they trying to punish – the punisher or the “punishee”?
That was in the 70s when Lee Kuan Yew saw himself besieged by enemies everywhere, real or imagined.
Newspapers which flouted his regulations could have their press cards withheld.
Without it, reporters could not, among other things, attend government press conferences.
I think the ban was eventually lifted when the authorities realised that press briefings were useful only if the press came – the more reporters the better.
Today it would be a public relations nightmare if any company or ministry were to send out invitations for a press conference and nobody came.
I have been an editor in Singapore (and several Asian countries) for several decades – from its early history of control under Lee to the present relaxation by his younger successors.
As Singaporeans ponder whether the re-energised Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will ring in a new press environment to eradicate public cynicism, I feel it may be useful to write a bit about the past.
One of my early posts was news editor of the defunct Singapore Herald which ran foul of Lee.
He had accused it of “black operation” after it listed foreigners among its shareholders.
This is now water under the bridge.
I remember his knuckle-duster crusade against newspapers perceived to be a security threat.
Lee had always believed that to govern, he needed to have his hands on three levers of power – the Treasury (reserves), the army (security) and mass media.
Control of the latter had allowed him to influence Singaporeans and defeat his political foes.
In the evenings, the sight of common folk sitting on wooden ben-ches and watching TV news at community centres was one to be- hold.
“Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primary purposes of an elected government,” he said.
The recent election setback has virtually ended the era when a compliant media can by itself keep Lee’s PAP or any party in power.
As a lever of government control, the influence of newspapers and TV in Singapore has steadily been eroded by the Internet.
Today Singaporeans are too well educated for this to be effective.
According to an official report, 81% of households here have digital access.
Facebook alone has nearly 3 milllion users in a population of five million.
In a recent Straits Times survey, 36.3% of people aged 21 to 34 cited the web as their top source of local political news – compared with 35.3% who preferred newspapers.
Among the older people, however, it is a different story.
Despite declining figures, the majority of them still rely on the 10 newspapers and TV news channels for their daily news diet.
But it is a sliding strength with time working against it.
Year after year, more Singaporeans are moving online for newsbreaks and social networking.
As a result, the circulations of the two strongest dailies – The Straits Times (English) and Lianhe Zaobao (Chinese) – have been dropping even as the population rose by 40%.
The average ST daily sales, which stood 391,612 in 1998, had fallen 7% to 365,800 last August despite the addition of half a million new residents.
Lianhe Zaobao dropped by 4.6% between 2006 and 2009 (174,500 copies a day).
Not all the fault lie with alternative media.
A large factor is public perception that the newspapers here are a government mouthpiece.
The Institute of Policy Studies recently published a survey which said half of Singaporeans believed “there is too much government control of newspapers and television”.
Youths aged 21 to 39 seemed most cynical with six in 10 agreeing with the statement, compared with half of those aged over 60.
Analysts said it indicates a relation between the proportion of media cynics and opposition voters, both of which had risen in tandem in the past 15 years.
“There is a growing belief that because of control and self-censorship, newspapers and TV here only give you the good things about government and avoid or play down the bad,” said a think tank researc- her.
“The electorate outburst is telling PM Lee that a new press strategy, even a whole new environment, may be needed to deal with this cynicism,” he said.
It is bad for Singapore, and bad for the PAP.
He has to decide if media monopoly and draconian laws continue to serve modern Singapore.
Carrying on this way could mean an eventual demise of the print newspaper industry.
Presently, newspaper circulations continue to stagnate and dip little by little.
To sustain profits, their owner Singapore Press Holdings has been relying more on property and non-newspaper revenues.
How can PM Lee remodel the media?
I remember some years before he became Prime Minister in 2004, Lee said he was an admirer of the BBC brand of objective, accurate and balanced journalism.
Now that he is in charge, maybe that’s a good starting point.
Maybe Dr. Lim is just testing waters to see how far he ( the PAP) can go. He is testing the responses and see whether the general population reactions are stupid enough to accept his anology. I am sad that this is the type of people the PAP call talent.
When LHL pointed out that Singaporeans are concerned about the high ministerial pay, here comes a great intellect in Dr Lee with a profound statement on money and dignity. My take is that he got a earful from the “boss” for 2 things – not hearing what his boss declared in public just days ago that led to a review committee being set up to address the issue of high ministerial salary which is likely to be cut. Second, for repeating a statement that prejudice the decision of the review committee. A great intellect who is now looking very daft..
Wanna know the hard truth? This is a very prevalent mindset among PAP MPs, and indeed, many high-flying people they interact with. This MP is really, harmlessly stating the truth – that government officials in S’pore will be looked down upon by elite S’poreans if they have lower salaries.
I don’t think it’s that simple. I believe that Dr Lim received a phone call late at night from Ah Loong himself. And I am sure that Ah Loong gave him a good verbal thrashing for lowering the dignity of the PAP. What’s the use of Ah Loong apologising and promising to “reform” the PAP when his MPs like Dr Lim, Irene Ng, Dr Janil etc are going around making stupid comments that reflect their shallow mindset?
Let there be known Singaporean are not stupid people who has to listen to stupid remarks made by a MP just because he belongs to a party named PAP. Also do not make it a habit of uttering nonsense and apologise later least it becomes comical.
The pressure has come to bear and Dr Lim has retracted his comments and apologised. Although it should have been done earlier, it is best to move on.
If unqualified MP’s or Ministers say something stupid and apologises, then what are the charges and action to be taken? If not, many will continue to say and do many things stupid!
honest mistake let move on !
at least now I know I am living in shame most of my life by the pay I get