I agree with Dylan and Syafiq. High pay is NOT the best tool to eliminate corruption.
Yes, i must admitt that high pay MIGHT reduce the incentive or need for corruption but other policies need to be put in place to reduce corruption. Personally i feel that one of the main reasons that Singapore is able to combat corruption is the The Prevention of Corruption Act.
There are countries with similar policies but yet their government is still troubled by corruption. In Taiwan, the Anti- Corruption Agency Law is adopted but, the government still faces serious corruption issues. For example, the previous president of Taiwan, Chen Shui Bian and has been imprisoned for his activities of money laundering as well as fraud. After he stepped down from his position is no longer able to enjoy presidential immunity, he was immediately controlled and limited from leaving the country by Taiwan prosecutors. His successor, Tsai Ing-Wen who took part in the presidential election of 2012 as a candidate is also currently under investigations of making improper profits from Yu Chang case when she was in the government. (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/12/22/2003521327 )
Hence, the establishment of anti-corruption laws are not enough to police the government officials and combat corruption usefully.
Having such policies are not enough. Other than putting the policy in place, the government needs to actively enforces such policies. For example, in Singapore, The Prevention of Corruption Act provides extensive powers to CPIB in the investigation of corruption, including:The power to investigate not just the suspect, but also the suspect's family or agents and to examine their financial and other records.
The power to require the attendance of witnesses for interview.
The power to investigate any other seizable offence which is disclosed in the course of a corruption investigation.
Through the strict regulation and policing by the government, Singapore is able to have a social climate where corruption is frowned upon and rarely seen.

The wage of the leader does not necessarily reflects the level of responsibility of the leader.

As a small island with an open economy, the Prime Minister of Singapore has a different work scope as the United States presidents. The obstacles that Singapore that faces includes limited resources and our open economy is directly linked to the level of international trade. Conversely, Obama is facing issues such as the debt of the country that is increasing with time, (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) as well as the consistently high unemployment rate of 8.3% in the country. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate). The responsibilities of the 2 leaders are so different that it cannot be compared via any measures, including wages.

In addition, Singapore practices the "clean wage policy" where the pays of the ministers do not have any hidden perks or benefits. On the other hand, in the United States, there is not "clean wage policy" put in place. In Singapore, LHL is paid $3.1 million but he is not provided with other amenities such as housing or private transport and even servants. All of these need not be paid for by Obama. Conversly, BO is paid at a lower price but he is provided with housing (ie, the White House) and private transport. Thus, the wage received by the OB is not fully reflective of what he is "earning" from the government.

Not only so, the cost of living in the 2 countries are different. Prices of goods and services are different and the amount of goods and services that the BO and LHL is different. For example, buying a house may be cheaper in some parts of USA than in Singapore. Hence, if we look at the purchasing power of the leaders based on their pay, LHL may not necessarily have a higher wage after considering the amount he has to spent on housing or travel.

Thus, it is not fair for both LHL and Obama to compare their responsibilities by their wages.

DPM Teo on clean wage policy and why it is unfair to compare ministerial pays.
http://forum.channelnewsasia.com/showthread.php?47454-Don-t-compare-S%92pore-ministerial-pay-with-other-countries&p=275675

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120118-322563/4.html

Paragon/s (of virtues)
Paragon - model or pattern of excellence.

In the context of the question, the paragons of virtues refers to the individuals who exhibits moral excellence and goodness.

Prestige - reputation or influence arising from success, achievement, rank, or other favorable attributes.

In the context of the question, government career is a highly reputable and respected occupation/ career path for one to take.

Vibrant -pulsating with vigor and energy

In the context of the question, a vibrant economy refers to a economy with high levels of trade going on at all times, and that the economy is booming due to high levels of economic activities of selling and buying.