Are high salaries for government officials ever justifiable?

The government of any country plays an active role in managing the society and developing the economy, and is paid by the country through taxes collected from its people. Controversially, there have been debates contending whether high salaries for government officials, including heads of state, ministers, members of parliament, judges and civil servants, are ever justifiable. While political leaders such as Minister Mentor of Singapore Lee Kwan Yew are adamant that high salaries are necessary to attract top talent into politics and reduce the incentive for corruption, high ministerial salaries have been a perennial source of disgruntlement for the general populace. Granted, government officials should be rewarded for their good performance, but it is in my opinion that government officials should serve with their heart rather than for the monetary benefits, which leads to the conclusion that high salaries for government officials are unjustifiable.

Supporters for the high salaries for government officials argue that a high pay is justified given the intensity and rigor of the government service. Politicians have to endure late nights, cope with a lack of privacy and are oft-times under immense pressure to perform for the people. Unless high wages are offered, countries would not be able to attract the best and the most capable leaders to serve a nation. The common adage of "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys" is a common argument; perhaps society will indeed be worse off if we trade a lower salary for less-than-capable politicians. As such, civil services around the world have pegged their salaries to the appropriate corresponding rungs in the private sector. In Singapore, for instance, ministers' salaries are currently pegged to two-third of the median salaries of the top 8 earners in the private sector. Basic economics apply here: in a free market economy, the government must compete with the private sector for talents and so official wages must be competitive or most of the top brains will prefer to work in the private sector.

Another strand of argument that is commonly used to support the high salaries of government officials is that it helps in establishing a corrupt-free government. A high salary provides less incentives for corrupt practices. This can be seen in Singapore, where politicians are the most highly paid in the world. The last publicly-available figures in 2009 showed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong earning $3.04 million, a staggering 5 times more than what runner-up Donald Tsang, Chief Executive of Hong Kong takes home. In fact, PM Lee's salary alone can fund the combined salaries of 8 of the world's highest paid politicians, including Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. Similarly, an entry-grade minister in Singapore earns much more than his counterparts in other countries, taking home a yearly income of $1.57 million. With the provision of high salaries, Singapore is one of the most corrupt-free countries in the world. High salaries are thus deemed to be justifiable as the money of the people are not pocketed. Rather, it is used to improve the welfare of its people.

However, the above two arguments can be debunked in a few ways. High salaries would attract the best talents into the government, but these talents might not have the innate passion to serve the people. Political office is simply seen as yet another career choice. Without the drive to do the best for its people, politicians would find it a chore to remain in office and this is detrimental to any country's progress. On the other hand, while there is a strong correlation between the salary rates of government and the level of corruption in a country, it does not suggest a causal relation between the two. The world's least corrupt countries, Iceland, Finland and New Zealand, do not provide their government officials with high salaries. It is believed that anti-corruption should be a trait that is embedded in government leaders. Even if the risk of corruption still exists, it can be prevented with the establishment of anti-corruption bureau. In Singapore, a powerful and non-compromising Corrupt Practices and Investigation Bureau is a strong deterrent to politicians who want to have their palms greased. Evidently, the presence of the bureau is more than enough to prevent corruption, and high salaries are thus redundant and unnecessary.

High salaries are unjustifiable because they often result in public dissent. In the United States, a bill legislating the rise of pay for politicians by 33% met vociferous dissent in the House of Representatives, and strong protests were registered across the nation in all mediums, be it in newspaper editorials, web blogs or talk shows like The Daily Show. Catholic Church bishops in France railed against the Government officials' high salaries, which in some cases exceeded one million pesos monthly. In Singapore, the dissatisfaction towards the government is evident in the recent May 7 election, in which the People's Action Party (PAP) only obtained 60.1% of the votes, its lowest mandate since independence in 1965. A pre-election survey conducted by Australian company UMR Research showed that 68% of Singapore's voters are dissatisfied with the overwhelmingly high ministerial pay. Evidently, high salaries of government comes at the expense of alienation from the masses. As such, leaders of a country may face problems in marshaling people to make sacrifices for the country. Citizens should be able to look up to leaders for moral leadership and inspiration. If what they perceive are mercenaries at the helm, then asking them to make sacrifices will be met with cynicism and indifference. This will not bode well for Singapore's future.

Public service must remain a noble undertaking for which people are prepared to make sacrifices in exchange for the benevolent power to improve the lives of others. If we corrupt this by money, we can be efficient but never a country of high ideals. Many countries, including Singapore have acknowledged that salaries must reflect the values and ethos of public service. On May 21, it was announced that NKF chairman Gerard Ee will be the head of a committee to review the basis and level of government salaries. The PAP is aware that the unhappiness over high ministerial pay must be addressed if they are to renew the compact between the government and the people.

In conclusion, high salaries are unjustifiable because we need leaders who serve out of love and patriotism, not workers who simply work for a high pay. The high salaries should neither be used as an incentive to recruit talents nor as a deterrent to corruption. Instead, we need to cultivate a strong sense of nationalism so that talented individuals serve the people on their own accord, while having the moral conscience to handle the public funds with proper care. Only then can we truly progress as a united nation.

"To save the environment, the only way forward is a complete lifestyle change." Discuss.

Against the backdrop of increasingly cosmopolitan societies, the issue of environmental protection is becoming more pertinent and relevant. Each day, 90 million tons of pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere, as if it were an open sewer. The ramifications of climate change are conspicuous: the past ten years have been the hottest years in history; ice glaciers are melting at twice the rate a decade ago; and sea levels are predicted to rise by 40cm in 2050, threatening the existence of low-lying coastal areas. In the face of an imminent ecological disaster, fervent environmentalists are arguing that the only way to conserve the environment for ourselves and our posterity is to alter our lifestyles, in particular, our consumption patterns. However, it is in my opinion that a complete lifestyle change would be impossible given the desire of many countries for economic progress. The best way would be compromises made by individuals, corporations and the government to mitigate and reduce the pernicious effects of environmental degradation.

Incontrovertibly, a complete lifestyle change would be the surest and fastest way to saving the environment. Deforestation, burning of fossil fuels, overfishing and animal poaching are a few of the many causes of the environmental degradation we see today. The total energy consumption of the world stands at an astonishing 15 terawatts, and is expected to shoot up to 40 terrawatts by 2050. In addition, with the emergence of burgeoning economies like China and India, the oil extraction rate has reached 1,016 barrels per second, amounting to a whopping 1 billion barrels per year. If humans change their lifestyles, for example, by adopting cycling as a means of transport, using candles instead of lights, and eliminating the use of all electrical appliances, there would be no need to burn fossil fuels at all. However, this is not feasible and impractical because we need energy to progress. We are at where we are today because of the harnessing of cheap energy sources. While it is important to save the environment, we cannot impede economic growth and deprive ourselves the chance of attaining a higher standard of living. We cannot change our lifestyles completely and live as if we were in the pre-historic era. Instead, we should take small steps to ameliorate the damages done to the environment. With a collective effort from the individuals, the harnessing of science, the corporate world, the government and the global community, we would be able to see conspicuous improvements in our environment in the near future.

The first step to saving the environment is through the individuals, by raising awareness and educating them about the ecological crisis we face today. With the rise in new media, environmental issues have taken on a greater profile. There have been global events such as Earth Hour and Live Earth concerts which purport to raise awareness and action for environmental causes. The influence of the mass media has resulted in a greater awareness about the environment in the general public, and this has helped to awaken a long-dormant environmental conscience which would serve as a precursor to active environmental conservation, rendering the environmental causes less of a futility. Documentaries such as "An Inconvenient Truth", "How many people can live on Planet Earth?" and "Dark Secrets" advocate environmental protection into the social priorities and political agenda of many. The public is thus more aware of the pernicious threats confronting the environment. More importantly, they realize that they have a moral calling to save the environment and this translates into an environmental conscience which would be pivotal in inducing action to save the environment. A change in mindset is a much better and expedient solution than a complete change in lifestyles as it allows individuals to slowly adopt green practices on their own accord, ultimately leading to improvements in the environment.

The advent of technology has also led to unprecedented developments in environmentally-friendly science, rendering the environmental causes more feasible. Researchers in a company called LS9 have created genes which allow bacteria to produce diesel fuels. In addition, they have also engineered micro-organisms which can convert sunlight and water into diesel. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), on the other hand, has manufactured highly-efficient solar panels with increased energy output of up to 30% or more. Such is the promise of technology, poised to resolve the major environmental issues we face today and carry us well into the twenty-first century. While advents in technology might not entirely solve the environmental problems we face today, they do reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and oil which mitigates some of the ecological damages we have done to the Earth.

Greener practices adopted by Multinational Corporations (MNCs) also play a significant role in saving the environment. Many MNCs exist solely to earn profits, but in recent years, they have begun aligning their commercial goals with that of environmentalism. Many MNCs realize that going green might be more cost-effective and efficient in the long run, generating more cost-savings and garnering a positive business reputation at the same time. General Electric (GE), a large American engineering firm, already has a thriving wind-turbine business and is investing in solar-energy businesses too. Shell and BP, two of the world's largest oil companies, are sponsoring academic researchers as well as new firms with bright ideas, as is DuPoint, one of the world's largest chemical company. Concomitantly, Wal-Mart is demanding greener practices from its Chinese suppliers and is advising them on greener alternatives. More recently, GM and Nissan have released their long-awaited green electric cars, plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf. These greener practices show that it is not necessary to completely change the lifestyle to save the environment; all we need is a conscious effort to reduce the harm to the environment. If all MNCs do the same, it is irrefutable that we would see significant improvements in our Eco-system.

The government also plays an important role in saving the environment, especially through the adoption of greener energies. It is thus important to note that even the government do not pursue a complete lifestyle change, but rather small changes which would still reduce the ramifications of environmental degradation. Brazil is the world's second largest and most economically honest bio-fuel industry, with 40% of the energy generated through the burning of sugarcane wastes. Many Scandinavian countries, such as Norway, Sweden and Switzerland are using hydroelectricity as a main source of energy. Some minor lifestyle changes can be seen in countries which are very conscious about saving the environment. Japan, for instance, has a strong recycling culture where all its wastes are sorted into different categories, while Danes recycle their beer bottles after consumption. Evidently, these small changes in their lifestyles will contribute to less waste generated, thus reducing the amount of wastes burnt and the amount of pollutants emitted. Such initiatives by the government to cultivate a culture of environmental consciousness would go a long way in saving the environment.

Finally, the global community has to work together to ensure that as we keep our current lifestyles, we make conscious efforts in protecting the environment. Critics argue that we should adhere to a complete lifestyle change because global efforts at saving the environment are limited, as exemplified by the United States' reluctance in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. However, it is myopic to overlook the many other environmental causes that are already in place and has been successful in saving the environment. The 1992 Rio De Janeiro earth Summit and the 2009 Copenhagen Summit show that the global community is conscious about the state of the environment. Such efforts need not be futile; one only needs to look at the Montreal Protocol a few decades ago to see that global efforts have been successful in reducing CFC production and saving the environment.

In conclusion, it is naive and impractical to totally change our lifestyles to protect the environment because we are all in a pursuit to improve our living standards. There must be a collective bid to raise consciousness and save the environment in other ways.

(Note: This essay was written under examination conditions and was awarded an A-grade of 74%)