Different light to Ministerial pay rise
-
Singapore is a tiny island with no endowed natural resources. Her only talent lies in her people ability and capability. To seek the best people into office is no longer a simple affair of seeking out the most passionate man for the job but the hunt is on for the best talented person for the job. In the globalisation out there, talented personals are consistently looking for greener pasture or to climb the corporate ladder. Can the most passionate man on the job able to cope with the unstoppable global waves foreseeable to be on in the next decade or so?
In the next decade, with MNCs investing in Asia and the two giants economies on the rise - China and India. There lies a possibility of losing our resources which is our best people into the global economy.
In my humble opinion, the rational for the increase in the Ministers' pay can be viewed in two manners. Either to urge able Singaporeans to step forward into politics by giving them the remunation similar to what the outside world had to offer or simply to retain the existing pool of good government official. This market rate conversion monetary package cannot be viewed in light as what some forumer called it as 'legally corruption' but a notch up to maintain the status quo between corporate and government. If corporate and government are on two end of the scale, without risking the best talent to the already corporatise world, the scale has to be fine-tune so that the ministers' pay has to be on par with what the corporate world had to offer. This harmonise process opens a myraid of opportunities to people who gets to choose whether to serve the nation or to venture into the corporate world.
-
If u ever learn about Organisation Behaviour, or OB. What makes people to be passionate, loyal, truthful is
Instrinsic and Extrinsic values.
Giving money is just an extrinsic factor. And research show that what keeps people staying/attracted to their jobs is Instrinsic values.
The Singapore govt is totally viewing this at the wrong way, giving people more money isnt gonna make them attracted to govt sector. Instrinsic plays a bigger factor than extrinsic.
Go get a book or attend a HR course and u will know more and how.
Besides, giving these govt people more money isnt gonna ease their pressure, if more money is really given, higher expectation from the masses is espected. Can the govt ensure that there is better governance if they get more money? -
How is that relevant? The benchmark you use to judge the quality of performances in public office and commercial sectors are worlds apart.Originally posted by TooFree:Singapore is a tiny island with no endowed natural resources. Her only talent lies in her people ability and capability. To seek the best people into office is no longer a simple affair of seeking out the most passionate man for the job but the hunt is on for the best talented person for the job. In the globalisation out there, talented personals are consistently looking for greener pasture or to climb the corporate ladder. Can the most passionate man on the job able to cope with the unstoppable global waves foreseeable to be on in the next decade or so?
In the next decade, with MNCs investing in Asia and the two giants economies on the rise - China and India. There lies a possibility of losing our resources which is our best people into the global economy.
In my humble opinion, the rational for the increase in the Ministers' pay can be viewed in two manners. Either to urge able Singaporeans to step forward into politics by giving them the remunation similar to what the outside world had to offer or simply to retain the existing pool of good government official. This market rate conversion monetary package cannot be viewed in light as what some forumer called it as 'legally corruption' but a notch up to maintain the status quo between corporate and government. If corporate and government are on two end of the scale, without risking the best talent to the already corporatise world, the scale has to be fine-tune so that the ministers' pay has to be on par with what the corporate world had to offer. This harmonise process opens a myraid of opportunities to people who gets to choose whether to serve the nation or to venture into the corporate world.
In the commercial world, while renumerations are undeniably fantastic for the capable, you're judged on your performance in strict tangible terms (ie.through revenue/profit for the company you oversee) and you'd be the first to get the boot if your performance is not up to scratch. More importantly, you don't get nonsense like lifelong pensions (remember, the function of pensions are not intended as rewards to begin with) in the commercial sector to begin with. More importantly, it beggars belief the kind of money (which are grossly above market standards) that is being talked about in the pensions awarded to top-end civil servants...
In politics(especially in systems adopting parliamentary democracy), barring changes arising from elections, who's there to assess and if necessary, remove the incumbent should he be doing a botched job? And all that's assuming the parliamentary democracy is a truly democratic one which functions in the same manner as the one adopted in the UK, which hardly applies in Singapore.
If you find it prudent to liken public office to commercial enterprises and that the senior management in public office should be renumerated in the same manner as commercial enterprises, then I think it's high time we opened the doors of the highest public offices to the most capable people on the planet - and that's where the principles of market economy will prevail and if taxpayers are going to pay a king's ransom for those positions, they're at least getting their money's worth(unlike the lot of cheap, incompetent thrash that's grossly overpaid)... -
Moreover, more monies paid to ministers did not equate to greater ability to restructure the economy.
Have the ministers really succeeded in creating a value-adding knowledge-based economy talked about for years during all the past three recessions or are they merely claiming credit for some rebounds due to general world recovery.
Our ministers who were paid million-dollar salaries throughout the whole period 1980s-1990s, have not really demonstrated any unique ability to upgrade the economy to the desired value-adding motivational economy which capitalize on our internal resources and past surpluses.
They have actually been found to have run out of true blue ideas and have to turn to gambling now to play catch up game principally because of past mistakes in narrowly implementing meritocracy for their own political control purposes at the expense of promoting its own domestic economy and broad-based practical education. -
Hey, its totally fine to increase their pay, no problems at all. But don't announce it like 2 weeks after you confirmed gst is going up 2 percentage points.
These 2 things just don't go down well together. -
they have to do it now so the sillyporeans will forget by the the next election draws nearOriginally posted by ditzy:Hey, its totally fine to increase their pay, no problems at all. But don't announce it like 2 weeks after you confirmed gst is going up 2 percentage points. These 2 things just don't go down well together. 
-
yes, as you can see timing is a rather important factor in making broad economic decisions like a 2 percentage point increase in GST coupled just a month later by saying they are going to increase the minister's paycheck.
This defintely does not go down well with the general public. And to think the government recently annouced that for the elderly on Public Assistance, 290 per month is sufficient.
But, at the same time, we're not really on the verge of going to do massive public demonstrations and what not. The reason, I feel, is that we are able to take alot of sh1t the government throws at us citizens, PR and FTs. We know we are in secure enviornment, where the median level of income is comfortable and that we can walk the streets at night w/o fear of being raped/mobbed/assualted. So for that, we do some compromise. We grumble, but we take it in our stride.
I am personally not in favour of a pay rise for the top echelons in the Admin Service. But don't get me wrong, I believe that the government is,comparatively with our region, doing an above average job in having an economic edge, in social security and have good foresight in many of the policies implemented.
However, I feel we are sending the wrong message to the Civil Service... that it becomes more of a lucrative job to be in a Ministerial appointment rather than service to the public. We should never lose that focus when it comes to poltics. Yes, detractors would agrue that some doctors in their own specialised medical field have taken major pay cuts to join politics... but i'm saying that we must not give a wrong general impression to the public about why our Ministers should be paid so highly ( with reference to other ministers' pay in other developed nations).
just my 2 cents -
Just a good dose of plain answers will do the trick
The civil service pay debate has betrayed the chasm of opinion but will the Government heed public sentiments?
Teo Hwee Nak
Commentary & Voices Editor
[email protected]
MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew never fails to rouse emotions when he speaks.
.
On Wednesday, he fired off his classic sting amidst the spirited debate over the impending pay rise for ministers and top civil servants.
.
Those who quarrel about $46 million — a mere 0.022 per cent of Singapore's Gross Domestic Product — don't have a sense of proportion, he said.
.
And if talented Singaporeans shy away from the public sector and top leaders call it quits every five years, Singapore would suffer, and "our women will become maids in other countries".
.
Not surprisingly, these words drew protestations from Singaporeans as soon as they saw them in print the next morning.
.
MM Lee's words were spot on. Indeed, many of us lack that sense of proportion.
.
After all, a $2.2 million annual paycheque is a mind-boggling sum to many Singaporeans, whose average four digit monthly salaries would have barely time to settle into their bank accounts before they're paid out to mortgages, loans and daily expenses.
.
While the Government is concerned about losing its top brains, the average Singaporean is anxious about keeping his decent-paying job. While the Government thinks, and deals, in millions, the average Singaporean is used to only handling tens, hundreds — and rarely — thousands in his daily life.
.
Therein lies the chasm between the people and Government, and nothing shows up this yawning gap as conspicuously as talk about paying our leaders more.
.
Analysing the arguments, it is plain that the two groups are simply speaking in different languages.
.
Today, when Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean delivers his ministerial statement on the pay increment, and the House debates, whose language should the discussion assume?
.
Bear in mind that no matter how long the debate lasts, it will not make any difference because the raise will materialise anyway.
.
Still — all the more because the people will have no say whatsoever in the final decision — if the debate is to be meaningful at all, it has to bridge this gulf by coming down to the level of the average Singaporean.
.
Too many questions have been raised in the past few weeks. It would not only be sad, but injurious, if they go unanswered at the end of the session.
.
Singaporeans will feel alienated and disengaged, something that will run counter to the Prime Minister's vision of an inclusive society.
.
For while we may flash the trump card of "transparency" — that's why we have a formula, that's why we put out the numbers, that's why we're even debating it in Parliament even though there is no need to — the good intentions will all be in vain if the people's sentiments are not directly addressed.
.
After all, back in 1994, after the White Paper on Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government was introduced and debated, and passed with only six objections from the House, it appears the majority of the public was still unconvinced and public unhappiness unabated. The recent feedback on the resurfaced issue says it all.
.
In rallying support for the White Paper in 1994, MM Lee, who was then Senior Minister, had predicted that in five to 10 years' time, the benchmark formula would have proven itself and been accepted as conventional wisdom, "just as other policies pioneered by Singapore ministers had been adopted by other countries".
.
Singapore has indeed maintained its good governance, which has delivered sterling economic and social results. But the benchmark formula is nowhere near being stamped as conventional wisdom.
.
Today, the debate has stagnated at the same questions raised back then, and again in 2000 when civil service pay was adjusted upwards and the formula tweaked. Why these six professions? Why top 48 earners? Why two-thirds of this median income? In fact, why have the peg at all?
.
In 1994, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had admitted that there was no science behind the numbers in the formula; they were derived from his own judgement. More than a decade on, under a new Prime Minister, a new generation of talent, and a new electorate, it may be time to revisit this judgement call.
.
Thirteen years on, has the talent crunch been resolved? If not, is this then a root problem that commands such urgency? Does the fact that we are revisiting the issue point to other reasons for the reluctance we see in potential politicians and mandarins, and to push factors behind the brain drain that, perhaps, the obsession with paying top dollar is masking? Has the Public Service Division conducted an in-depth study to examine what really draws and retains talent?
.
In the past couple of weeks, other questions have surfaced. Why pay out pensions on top of the high salaries, when the private sector enjoys no such benefit?
.
Since the salaries of ministers and senior civil servants were restructured in 2000 to build in more performance-related bonuses, what then are the key performance indicators for the ministers and the top rungs in their ministries and statutory boards, and how are they appraised? Do all ministers command that market value?
.
These are all valid questions. And today's session has to address them.
.
In Mr Teo's speech, we may well hear the familiar argument of the import of good governance and the gravity of the talent shortage crisis. But we also look forward to unambiguous answers to the many questions that have been broached.
.
In a House dominated by one ruling party, People's Action Party MPs owe it to the electorate to step out of their party shoes and quiz the leaders on the issue with an independent mind and stand, and ensure the debate adopts the language of the man in the street, with sensitivity.
.
All eyes will also be on the Opposition MPs, who were disappointingly reserved in the Budget debates. Considering ministerial pay has always been their pet topic at the hustings, Singaporeans will be waiting to see how they perform on the Parliament stage.
.
MM Lee said last week that the cure for this firestorm over pay is a good dose of incompetent government.
.
I'd say there's no need for excessive medication. Just a good dose of plain answers and an exhaustive down-to-earth debate might perhaps make the bitter pill easier to swallow.
The civil service pay debate has betrayed the chasm of opinion but will the Government heed public sentiments? -
yeah, this is a strategic move.Originally posted by 4getmenot:they have to do it now so the sillyporeans will forget by the the next election draws near -
You think anyone can step up if they want even if they deserve the salary?Originally posted by TooFree:Singapore is a tiny island with no endowed natural resources. Her only talent lies in her people ability and capability. To seek the best people into office is no longer a simple affair of seeking out the most passionate man for the job but the hunt is on for the best talented person for the job. In the globalisation out there, talented personals are consistently looking for greener pasture or to climb the corporate ladder. Can the most passionate man on the job able to cope with the unstoppable global waves foreseeable to be on in the next decade or so?
In the next decade, with MNCs investing in Asia and the two giants economies on the rise - China and India. There lies a possibility of losing our resources which is our best people into the global economy.
In my humble opinion, the rational for the increase in the Ministers' pay can be viewed in two manners. Either to urge able Singaporeans to step forward into politics by giving them the remunation similar to what the outside world had to offer or simply to retain the existing pool of good government official. This market rate conversion monetary package cannot be viewed in light as what some forumer called it as 'legally corruption' but a notch up to maintain the status quo between corporate and government. If corporate and government are on two end of the scale, without risking the best talent to the already corporatise world, the scale has to be fine-tune so that the ministers' pay has to be on par with what the corporate world had to offer. This harmonise process opens a myraid of opportunities to people who gets to choose whether to serve the nation or to venture into the corporate world.
Only elites in the inner circle and the lees are the only people capable enough to hold office.
Besides, not all rich or capable people want to be yes man and have a conscience -
totally agreed. Thanx to u i dont need to type out things like herzberg's 2 factor theory, equity theory and so onOriginally posted by pinkish purple papayas:If u ever learn about Organisation Behaviour, or OB. What makes people to be passionate, loyal, truthful is Instrinsic and Extrinsic values.
Giving money is just an extrinsic factor. And research show that what keeps people staying/attracted to their jobs is Instrinsic values.
The Singapore govt is totally viewing this at the wrong way, giving people more money isnt gonna make them attracted to govt sector. Instrinsic plays a bigger factor than extrinsic.
Go get a book or attend a HR course and u will know more and how.
Besides, giving these govt people more money isnt gonna ease their pressure, if more money is really given, higher expectation from the masses is espected. Can the govt ensure that there is better governance if they get more money? -
I am not completely doing away with the instrinsic factor that you have mentioned but to rake up a system in place so that the market rate payable to our ministers does not fall below the benchmark market wages rate in the corporate world.Originally posted by pinkish purple papayas:If u ever learn about Organisation Behaviour, or OB. What makes people to be passionate, loyal, truthful is Instrinsic and Extrinsic values.
Giving money is just an extrinsic factor. And research show that what keeps people staying/attracted to their jobs is Instrinsic values.
The Singapore govt is totally viewing this at the wrong way, giving people more money isnt gonna make them attracted to govt sector. Instrinsic plays a bigger factor than extrinsic.
Go get a book or attend a HR course and u will know more and how.
Besides, giving these govt people more money isnt gonna ease their pressure, if more money is really given, higher expectation from the masses is espected. Can the govt ensure that there is better governance if they get more money?
Although intrinsic and extrinsic are both complementary factors in attracting a person onto the job, a person with passion to serve might not have the capability to handle macro-level management. So if both even up, at least the system I mentioned is in place to make sure that the extrinsic factor hold the key so that our capable people are not lost into the global hunt for talent out there.
It is not a simplistic thinking that there will only be better governance if the goverment are well paid but a deserving amount have to be given for the best talent who intent to put their foot forward. -
HAPPY wrote:
True. That is why there should be no such thing as benchmarking of ministers' salaries as each minister should be assessed by the selection board or boss on his own worth and experiences which are market driven.
roberttehkh wrote:
I have happened to know that a neighbourhood policeman who took down particulars like change of address is paid over S$2,500.00 pm. In the private sector such custom service officer will be paid at most S$1,500.00 pm without 28 days annual leave/
Now let us check: is the teacher overpaid? Is a property or town council manager overpaid? Is the car park supervisor overpaid?
A cursory survey should show that the regular teacher with some 10 years' teaching experience is paid S$8,000.00 pm whereas an adjunct teacher (same experience) is only paid S$2,000.00 pm. MOE knows of this fact and is now engaging large number of adjunct teachers not because of pays but because many adjunct teachers are doing a better job in imparting knowledge to the children
Happy:
It is the govt jobs that matters. In terms of pay and salary.
But in pte ltd, it all depends on your experience and qualification.
And in term of salary, it is up to the company to pay the workers.
At application time or election time, any ministers who feel they should be paid more as now recommended by PM will then be truly assessed to avoid NKF malpractices. Such assessments based on candidates' worth and experiences will definitely help to keep up with the private sector successful few, and retain talents. To avoid malpractices through selective comparison, let there be no selective benchmarking but let there be completely above board and be assessed by voters by votes.
Those who say they are worth more will be judged in a fair manner and voted in no one can complain and we will not lose talents.
Those who are too arrogant to insist that they are the great visionary leaders who have done much and think Singapore owes them for their great leadership and should be paid even more than any one should then be judged properly by the voters and they are still voted in no one should complain. -
By throwing too much weight to extrinsic factors, and refusing to answer why more people are leaving for non-monetary reasons, the govt is not doing itself and our future any good.
Basically, the system as we see it today has to go for any real change to occur. Why should we encourage a culture of "I will only serve my country if they will pay me enough"?
You're a civil servant, you hate your pay and you wish you could be like that posh banker? Then go be that fcuking banker and stop whining. If you love public administration and are genuinely interested in nation-building, then join.
There's room for idealists to be civil servants, and pragmatists to get the heck out of the govt to pursue their own dreams, but we should never try to play with fire and think for one moment that using money as fodder will get us the most passionate chaps.
Ever wonder why some leave? perhaps they cannot say "yes" all the time, and be able to face themselves in the mirror. The inclusionary corporate practice of pragmatism has a way of eroding away the human soul. -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:By throwing too much weight to extrinsic factors, and refusing to answer why more people are leaving for non-monetary reasons, the govt is not doing itself and our future any good.
Basically, the system as we see it today has to go for any real change to occur. Why should we encourage a culture of "I will only serve my country if they will pay me enough"?
You're a civil servant, you hate your pay and you wish you could be like that posh banker? Then go be that fcuking banker and stop whining. If you love public administration and are genuinely interested in nation-building, then join.
There's room for idealists to be civil servants, and pragmatists to get the heck out of the govt to pursue their own dreams, but we should never try to play with fire and think for one moment that using money as fodder will get us the most passionate chaps.
Ever wonder why some leave? perhaps they cannot say "yes" all the time, and be able to face themselves in the mirror. The inclusionary corporate practice of pragmatism has a way of eroding away the human soul.
-
I'm wondering how are those social/charity workers feeling. They spend their spare time to help the needy to give assistance, to give volutuerly donations from their own day job pay to those who are not well off.
If I'm them, I will be thinking "KNN, me spend my time helping the poor and needy, giving donations from my own pocket to the poor. Government, who is suppose to do all this in the first place, had not been doing a good job and is going to fatten their paychecks!! WTF am I still doing all this!"
"They are going to increase their pay to keep the top people in the government, they might as well increase MY pay, else I'll stop giving donations!!" -
hunt is on for the best talented person for the job??Originally posted by TooFree:Singapore is a tiny island with no endowed natural resources. Her only talent lies in her people ability and capability. To seek the best people into office is no longer a simple affair of seeking out the most passionate man for the job but the hunt is on for the best talented person for the job. In the globalisation out there, talented personals are consistently looking for greener pasture or to climb the corporate ladder. Can the most passionate man on the job able to cope with the unstoppable global waves foreseeable to be on in the next decade or so?
In the next decade, with MNCs investing in Asia and the two giants economies on the rise - China and India. There lies a possibility of losing our resources which is our best people into the global economy.
1) if they are really BEST talent we can find in sg.. then i am really going to be worry about our future
2) Best banker in sg is the best MP? no they are just best at using others money to make more money for themselves
3) Best lawyer in sg is the best MP? no they are just the best liars in sg
4) Best Doctor in sg is the best MP? no they are just best at cutting u up and then still force u to pay more when all u want is your rights to live on.
5) Best road sweeper in sg is the best MP? yes, they are the one that make our sg the best in the world in something at least... low pay, no complain, best in the world, take pride in what they are doing, and their hands are "CLEAN".