Continued media bombardment on asking for more pay
-
ok ok.. here's my offer again.... 3 bowl of rice with luncheon meat is all i am asking for.... . but still havent get any pm from nyone after so long leh...
-
What?Best talent will not want to serve the government if their salary do not increase?What???Then how come our most talented 'Malaysia' born foreign talent Mr Goh still serve the PAP government until now?Ohhh, aint he consider the most talent after all since our Mr Lee Kuan Yew promoted him to senior MM?Hmmm...,so what the government trying to tell us is that if they don't increase the salary of all public sector of those belonging to the high level sector, then most of them will leave for the private sector... or only afew will leave?Those who are loyal to serve the public will continue to serve the government as their heart is not for the money alone but more for the public.And i say this is what we want.We don't want someone who are sooo money minded to serve us.And frankly speaking, public sector got alot of attractive welfare compare to the private sector......so i think increasing the pay to match with the private sector is nothing but load of rubbish!!!
-
shameless govt. somehow i feel this govt are digging their own graves in the next election.
-
Do you think so? The important 1/2 of the population would readily support the Govt by playing into the hands of the PAP who would again portray themselves as order and the opposition as chaos, despite the fact that the Govt is morally bankrupt.Originally posted by reyes:shameless govt. somehow i feel this govt are digging their own graves in the next election. -
Latest news update from ST.
Besides the one below, there was recently another speech by NTUC chief, Lim Swee Sway, explaining the "benefits" of better paid ministers. errh... wait a minute, isn't he a minister too?javascript:emoticon('
')
New round of pay hikes, New round of debates
The contentious issue of ministerial pay is back. Last week, the Government revealed how far behind salaries of its top people have fallen compared to private sector benchmarks. Insight takes a look at questions that have surfaced.
Reports by Peh Shing Huei, Sue-Ann Chia, Lynn Lee, Goh Chin Lian and Zakir Hussain
March 26, 2007
The Straits Times
IT’S back. Thirteen years, a new prime minister and numerous ups and downs and ding-dongs later, Singapore is once again facing a monster debate which refuses to be slayed – ministerial pay.
That is not how it was supposed to be.
Back in 1994, when salaries of top public service leaders were first benchmarked to that of the private sector, then-Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew wanted it to end all talk once and for all.
In a speech that ran past two hours in Parliament, he said: “I believe this matter should be got out of the way by settling a formula for ministers and top civil servants, linking their pay to incomes in the private sector, so that there is no need to justify a salary revision every three or four years.
“Adjustments can then be made automatically based on Iras figures...And it will go up or down with the private sector and never get seriously out of line.”
But as Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told The Straits Times in an interview in 2005, that was perhaps a tad unrealistic.
“Every few years I’m sure we’ll have to explain again why it has to be done this way,” he said. Indeed, as was the case in 2000 when the salaries were last revised upwards, the public engagement machinery looks set to be oiled and cranked up again.
At the annual dinner for the elite Administrative Service on Thursday, PM Lee revealed that top public sector salaries have fallen way behind the private sector.
The salaries of ministers and top mandarins are pegged at two-thirds the median income of 48 people culled equally from six professions.
According to the benchmark, ministers should earn $2.2 million a year. Instead, their pay is only at 55 per cent of the benchmark, or $1.2 million.
The gap needs to be closed if there is to be a continuing flow of talent into the top echelons of government, said Mr Lee.
But by how much?
Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, who is in charge of the civil service, will announce the changes in Parliament on April 9.
The Government can expect a rigorous debate that would almost certainly be also emotional, questioning among other things: the timing of the planned pay hike; the principle of pegging to the private sector; the usefulness of the formula; and the process of determining the pay packets. -
The timing: Why now?
Another piece in ST.
Note the MP's responses:
One said - it is a question of envy... [You are damn right, but if you standing on the higher moral ground of a) achievement, b) ground support, c) a long laundry list of doing things for us, the question of envy may probably not hold water...as it is, there isn't high moral ground for them to be speaking down to us... question of envy sheesh... more like a question of greed.]
another said: it is mischievous to link the GST increase to increase in minister pay. Well, if you are not transparent, can you seriously blame the man on the street to make that connection. To increase pay and increase govt's revenue sources is not "speaking well of the govt", it is just plain "asking for it".
March 26, 2007
The Straits Times
THE proposed pay rise is not a surprise.
As Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan says, the hints were there as early as last November when Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said that ministerial pay was lagging behind the benchmarks.
But the timing of the hike has raised a few eyebrows.
“It’s true that civil servants’ pay has not gone up for some time. But in a year when we are trying to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor and when MPs have been debating about how to help the poor, it is certainly an inappropriate time to raise the issue – unless there is an urgent need to do so,” says Associate Professor Ho Khai Leong of the Nanyang Technological University.
The Government would argue so, pointing to rising resignation rates in the civil service – from 4.8 per cent in 2005 to 5.7 last year – and a tightening labour market.
It is also a pre-emptive move to forestall departures in a booming economy and to do it when times are good, as there is the wherewithal to narrow the gap between public and private sector pay.
But with the goods and services tax (GST) set to rise from 5 to 7 per cent on July 1, MPs acknowledge that the masses would find it hard to reconcile the two increases.
Says MP Ong Kian Min (Tampines GRC): “It’s a question of envy. They will think that even though everyone suffers, the ministers are being compensated so much more.”
Mr David Leong, managing director of recruitment firm People Worldwide Consulting, adds: “Some people might wonder if the GST increase is to pay for the increase in ministers’ salaries.”
MP Sin Boon Ann (Tampines GRC) cautions against such linkage.
He says: “That would be mischievous. It speaks well of the Government that it chooses to bite the bullet and do it now, instead of raising the GST now and then increasing ministers’ pay a year later just to avoid criticism.”
But Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, chairman of the opposition WorkersÂ’ Party, says the timing betrays the GovernmentÂ’s insensitivity.
She says: “It reflects how the Government is not concerned about running roughshod over the anxieties of the general public over the impending GST hike and rising fees in polyclinics and hospitals.
“Practically in the same breath, Singaporeans are told to be happy with a few dollars more a month under
Workfare, while their leaders’ salaries need to go up from $100,000 monthly to as much as $180,000.” Workfare is an income supplement for low-wage workers.
For the public, on a subject as emotive as pay packets, there is perhaps never a good time to raise ministersÂ’ pay. The onus would now be on the Government to explain why now is better than later. -
This article drives at another point. IF, the whole exercise was about the ministers relooking at the pay packet for the 20s-30s administrative staff alone, I would find the whole exercise more palatable and in fact reasonable and wise. BUT the reality is the ministers are looking at their pay and [if one could argue] using the loss of 13 officers from 230 as an excuse. There is a non-sequitur in that, ministers do not (if not many) come from the administrative staff pool. Instead the administrative staff 's path is towards the PS position. Since not many can be the PS, people leave. Is that bad? Is "losing" our top brains to the private sector really a "loss" for Singapore? Can't we actually look at it as a "release" of the best and the brightest back to the private economy and that it is a GOOD thing?
As USSR, China etc. has shown us, a socially managed economy has its limits - the people who managed it. It is time to rethink this need to be so possessive of the top talents in the government and maybe a redistribution by market forces i.e. salaries and other intrinsic motivations apart from the pay package.
The peg: Can it keep talent?
March 26, 2007
The Straits Times
OVER the years, the focus of the debate on public sector pay has shifted.
Recognising that public sector leaders should be fairly compensated, people now ask how well they should be paid.
Is pegging ministerial salaries to private-sector pay a fair and equitable deal?
Professor Neo Boon Siong of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy believes so.
“From a management perspective, they are doing important things, they should be paid the value they are worth. Their impact on the country is even greater than that for private-sector firms.”
This is also a way to keep the best in the Government.
Already, the countryÂ’s top mandarins are key targets for many top firms. This is because the skill sets and competencies required in the private and public sectors have converged, says Mr Andrew How, general manager of human resource consultancy Hay Group.
However, Mr David Leong from People Worldwide Consulting argues that risks in the public sector are different and incomes more stable.
“What if our nation runs into losses? Do ministers and civil servants adjust their salaries downwards now conditions are changed?”
Adds Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim: “In the public sector, national policies and directions are set. What happens when policies fail? How often do ministers get stripped of their positions or lose post-public-sector benefits?”
Still, the Public Service Division (PSD) has pointed out that ministers are not in “guaranteed long-term jobs” – they face general elections every five years.
For top civil servants, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Thursday the Government does not want to lose “entire cohorts” of good officers as it did in the 1990s, when it failed to respond as the private sector surged ahead.
Over the past year, 13 administrative officers out of a batch of 230 resigned for various reasons. A small number perhaps, but it got the Government moving.
As PSD Permanent Secretary Lim Soo Hoon tells Insight: “The most vulnerable age for them is around the late 20s, early 30s. That’s when the bond ends and... they are freer to think of other options.”
Still, experts doubt if high salaries alone are enough to make them stay.
In a 2003 paper examining rewards for top publicsector officers, political scientist Jon Quah pointed out that high pay seems to curb the brain drain among ministers and permanent secretaries to the private sector. But not for officers such as those below head of department level.
Yesterday, Professor Quah, who teaches at the National University of Singapore, told Insight: “The salary is a necessary but insufficient factor in retention, where other factors like working conditions matter. The salary cannot ensure job satisfaction.”
Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan also cautions against being too “overly market- oriented” in this bid to keep the brightest minds.
“(This) is detrimental to the cultivation of a publicservice ethos, especially in a young nation like ours.” -
The final piece. Well, this one says it all... "IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, ... pay changes ... will be approved by Parliament."
Amy Khor's point: ...
“The aim is that everyone benefits. Other countries may have low reported salaries, but do they have a government which is good and efficient?”
My view - Is this a rhetorical question? Yah, if not those governments tend to be removed. There are media and other government watchdogs i.e. judiciary that hold those government accountable. Salaries (reported or otherwise) do not keep the government good or efficient, it just stave off temporary temptations to take money from elsewhere. please,if this is the public debate and the way the government is reaching out and swaying public opinion, methinks they are doing a "terrible and inefficient" job.
As for scrutiny - I think the hybrid of both suggestions should be done - i.e. parlimentary debate, external panel and probably the President (who should be impartial to this whole salary exercise) be involved. Afterall, wasn't the president role expanded to guard over the reserves. I think the monetary reimbursement qualifies as part of the jaga job, don't you think?
The scrutiny: A better way?
March 26, 2007
The Straits Times
IN ALL likelihood, Defence Minister Teo Chee HeanÂ’s announcement of pay changes to top public sector pay will be approved by Parliament.
One could argue, though, that the Government need not even go to the House.
Since the formula of pegging public sector pay to that of the private sectorÂ’s had been approved by Parliament in 1994, technically the Government does not need further legislative approval if it wants to raise salaries to match the benchmark.
But it seems determined to go through a thorough debate, no doubt to engage and persuade the public on the subject.
It seems intent to show that it is transparent and unapologetic about any increases, a position in keeping with its long-held principle of governance that it will do what is right even if it is unpopular.
As Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Environment and Water Resources) Amy Khor says: “We are transparent. That’s why all these figures come out.
“The aim is that everyone benefits. Other countries may have low reported salaries, but do they have a government which is good and efficient?”
But some are asking if transparency can be further enhanced if ministers are detached from setting the benchmarks and determining pay increases.
As the biggest employer here, however, the public service is in the best position to know wage trends and recommend changes when necessary.
Therefore, the process of scrutinising the numbers and approving the recommendations can be finetuned, say observers.
Professor Neo Boon Siong, director of the Asia Competitiveness Institute at the LKY School of Public Policy, suggests using the Public Service Commission (PSC).
Although appointed by the Prime Minister, PSC members cannot be public officers, MPs, political party members or trade unionists.
He says: “The independent members of the board could make decisions, with recommendations.”
There is a precedent of sorts.
In 1994, a similar panel was set up with Fraser and Neave chairman Michael Fam as the head.
It was set up to verify Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) data and calculations used to determine the salary benchmarks, which were already approved by Parliament. It also considered whether the prime ministerÂ’s salary benchmark was appropriate.
Its findings supported the benchmarks and the salaries and even suggested that the PM should get more.
But such panels can be rigged easily with appointees close or sympathetic to the Government. Academic Ho Khai Leong is not keen on them.
He prefers the current parliamentary debate route. “We need more justification why they need to increase the pay... If there are sharper and more critical questions, and government officials are forced to give answers, then they are more accountable. They will go through the motions but we want that kind of procedural justice within the limitations of our system.” -
Why should political appointees' pay be higher than the ones who do the goddamned work? The real talent leaves because they do not feel they are worth a damn, and it's not about money.
The PAP have got to realise money does not depoliticise a person, nor remove any strand of passion for dreams just to serve the "gahmen". -
there they go again...an air of arrogance..Originally posted by vaxjunior:As Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Environment and Water Resources) Amy Khor says: “We are transparent. That’s why all these figures come out.
“The aim is that everyone benefits. Other countries may have low reported salaries, but do they have a government which is good and efficient?”
i wonder how Bush, Blair and other countries would say on this statement.. -
Bush is no better. That man has turned America towards more police-state action in the past few years.Originally posted by 4getmenot:there they go again...an air of arrogance..
i wonder how Bush, Blair and other countries would say on this statement.. -
Cos its WE s'poreans dat she is addressing so can say things like dat. In front of Bush or Blair, u tink still dare to say?? More like time for apple-polishing or maybe say things like "actually i wasnt refering to u all,i meant some 3rd world country leaders blah blah...".Originally posted by 4getmenot:there they go again...an air of arrogance..
i wonder how Bush, Blair and other countries would say on this statement..
Manipulation and words-twisting is part of their game folks. -
Teo Chee Hean's prediction: that the pay adjustment will come through, is very likely, given the MIW's track record of tossing an issue about in parliament when it has already been decided.
The govt is simply testing the ground to determine what kind of feedback there is. Evidently, the arguments of the average joe on the street against the salary increase are but background noise to be 'ignored'.
On the other hand, we Singaporeans grumble and complain, but when asked to vote last year, a majority still remained MIW silent supporters.
Time to put your vote where your mouth is...in 5 years time. That is if our typical memory lapses haven't kicked in yet. -
i wanna be a politician because i wanna be rich...
i will ask my children to study hard n be an elite and join politics too...
we will appear on tv and sweet talk to singaporeans and yet continuing to fatten our wallets...