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?
