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?