Dear Editor,
In the words of the late, great Philip C. Galanis: Consider this…
Singapore, a nation once riddled with poverty, land scarcity, and limited natural resources, has
become one of the world’s most prosperous, efficient, and corruption-resistant societies in just
over half a century. Among the many ingredients in its recipe for success, one policy often
stands out, how they pay their public leaders.
In Singapore, cabinet ministers, senior civil servants, and statutory board leaders are
compensated competitively, with salaries benchmarked to the top earners in the private sector.
The logic is simple: to run the largest, most complex institution in the country, you need
competent, experienced, and motivated leadership. And such leadership, in the private sector,
commands a premium.
Consider this: the Singaporean model is credited with dramatically reducing corruption and
inefficiency, attracting top talent from law, finance, engineering, and business into public service.
The salary of a minister in Singapore is reportedly over US$800,000 per annum, with built-in
performance-based bonuses tied to national outcomes like GDP growth and citizen satisfaction.
This isn’t about overpaying; it’s about aligning expectations with compensation. And by doing
so, they’ve built a high-performance government that delivers.
Now let us turn inward and ask ourselves, Ravendoes the compensation we offer for top
leadership roles in The Bahamas reflect the level of responsibility and the expectations we place
on them?
Today, a Bahamian cabinet minister earns approximately $66,000 per year. Consider the weight
of that role: overseeing hundreds, sometimes thousands, of employees, managing
multimillion-dollar budgets, setting national policy, and being held publicly accountable for
everything from crime to education outcomes to infrastructure delays. For perspective, the head
of a medium-sized private company with far fewer variables likely earns two to three times that
salary.
This is not to discredit or diminish those who have served or are serving in these positions.
Quite the opposite we have had, and currently have, ministers who are deeply committed and
have done extraordinary work in the face of immense challenges. But the question must be
asked: are we making it easier or harder to attract high-caliber talent to public service when the
financial sacrifice is so great?
If we agree that the government is the largest and most important business in the country, why
would we structure it in a way that discourages the best business minds from entering it?
Private sector leaders understand that in order to recruit and retain talent, you must pay people
what their skill sets, performance, and responsibility warrant. Yet, when it comes to governance,
we abandon this logic. Why?Consider this: if we were to pay 17 to 20 cabinet ministers an average of $175,000 to $200,000
per year, a range that even now could arguably be seen as low, but would still be a meaningful
and respectable start. It would cost the country roughly $3 to $4 million more annually. In the
context of a national budget of several billion dollars, is it possible that this small investment
could yield significantly improved execution across ministries, stronger policy planning, and
more rigorous oversight?
Would we, in fact, save money in the long run by minimizing costly mistakes and inefficiencies
that result from underqualified or underresourced leadership?
There’s a saying in both business and government: you get what you pay for. If we continue to
underpay for one of the most critical roles in the country, we may continue to struggle with
underperformance in areas that desperately need high-level expertise.
Now, the concern has always been optics. How can elected leaders justify raising their own
salaries? The political risk is understandable. But consider a reform that only takes effect after a
future general election, creating a transparent structure that applies to whichever government is
elected next. In this way, no sitting MP votes to raise their own pay. Instead, the law builds the
framework for a new standard and allows the Bahamian people to choose their leaders
accordingly.
Could such a move depoliticize the decision and simultaneously raise the bar for the caliber of
individuals attracted to serve on both sides of the political aisle?
To be clear, no salary can buy integrity, patriotism, or vision. But fair compensation can attract
individuals who may otherwise never consider public life. It may also reduce the temptation for
conflicts of interest, mismanagement, or compromised oversight. Singapore believed that
corruption often starts where compensation ends, and their approach was to leave no room for
justification.
Are we willing to test that idea here?
The truth is this: we can only go as far as the strength of the team we choose to run the country.
And we should ask ourselves, what would it take to build a world-class government, not just in
vision, but in execution?
Maybe the answer is as simple, and as complex, as this: are we willing to pay for it?
Consider that.
By: H.E. Sebastian Bastian
