Because the reasoning is not based on size, or GDP, or
comparison with other foreign leaders.
The comparison is simply relative parity with the private sector
counterpart.
Again, similarly, if we look at the starter positions, such as
new policemen, new teachers, there is relative parity with their
private sector counterparts.
I believe it is important.
Because if there is a significant gap between private and public
sector, there is going to be dichotomy and
compartmentalization.
The talented people will go to private sector and the leftover
losers will go to the public sector.
The public sector workers would be more incompetent, more
lazier, more susceptible to bribing, etc, all sorts of problems,
which would eventually create problems and difficulties for all of
the society.
This is not theory. This is practice and you can see it with
your own eyes.
Just look at Malaysia, Indonesia.
In Malaysia if you get caught with traffic violation, you can
bribe a policeman with "coffee money"
In Singapore it is much harder to approach a policeman with
"coffee money", why ?
It is not some coincidence or some strange configuration of
stars which created this situation. So what are the factors which
created this situation ? How come Singapore in the middle of
Malaysia and Indonesia can have much lesser corruption..?
The answer is, because of the relatively good renumeration.
In whatever organization and whatever job position, having a
good renumeration is important.
I believe it is doubly important in public sector because the
people in that sector hold power and authority and their decisions
have outsized significance and impact on the rest of the
society.
One minister who is bribed to give out a road construction
project to a company who bribe him, is detrimental and is much more
harmful, than the "coffee money" being given to a traffic
policeman, so yes, as you go up the ladder, the renumeration need
to keep up also.
I believe it is important to have relative parity with private
sector.
Comparison with private sector is ok but why only select the top
highest paying and peg against that? That will only skew the
statistics and with the intentional wrong sample selection, the
purpose is to "prove" something that is not reality.
If the comparison is to be fair, salary should be taken from the
25% of the highest paid population and 25% of the lowest paid
popluation. That will make the average pay more reaonable.
If private sector is so attractive, and these people are just
working for money and not in the service of people, then these
people are better off making the economy grow by working in the
private industries and earning that kind of salary rather than
artificially kept in the government service with inflated salaries.
It does not serve the people nor themselves for the kind of work
might not even suit them but they just clung to it due to
salary.
If it is true to always compare to the top highest paid and pay
themselves that salary, then Obama should then demand as high a
salary as Bill Gates or all the top paid people in US. Similar
would happen world wide and all these leaders would be paid in
billions. These leaders are surely not asking for super high pay
and not comparing againsts private sector because it is to them
their chance to serve the people and nation. Its a different
calling altogether and they are not looking at these numbers but
the welfare of the nation and world.
Anyways, what's done is done. We had created a monster and
no hero is around to slay it.
