The ongoing media bombardment on our senses as to why their pay
should increase.
A few interesting points about LHL's argument which many in
cyberspace have more or less debated and found wanting
1. Salary increase = competent honest government
2. Benchmark = fallacy, do ALL lawyers earn 4.29M. Who are the ones
included in both benchmarks. Can the same senior PS, minister, AO
who have been in the service for as long as they have to gain
experience and seniority be as easily "hunted"? Why use lawyers
when the speech mentioned mainly those who are in their early 30s
being drawn to financial services? What are the statistics of
turnover during those "critical years"? Can the benchmark be made
more transparent?
3. Without the ministers == will the civil service (a fine-tuned
bureaurcratic machinery) fail to function. Quote "'Unless there is
a first-class political leadership and judiciary, the Civil
Service, however capable and dedicated, will not be able to
function properly,' he said."
This is a testable hypothesis and the 1994 "crisis" year is a
natural experiment. With "all" the critical and good people
leaving, did the civil service fail to function? What was the
impact of those who left on the overall performance of the
government? From my layman perspective, nothing great happened. Can
the government and civil service provide reports detailing the loss
of talent on the performance of the government?
4. Accordingly, these top talent are supposed to provide cutting
edge public policy as per quote "With Singapore now operating near
the 'leading edge' in public policy, public-sector leaders cannot
rely on the best practices of other countries, but have to break
new ground and find fresh solutions." Yet we read of one account
after another of study trips that our government civil servants
taking overseas to learn from the best overseas (whose civil
servants are much poorly paid and by their logic, functioning at
sub-par levels). See our ERP system -- adopted from Europeans?
transportation system - getting aussie consultants? Errmm...
something is lost in the whole speech that I am not getting.
Can someone enlighten me?
PM discloses the wide gap and urgent need to retain talent in
public sector
By Lydia Lim, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Mar 23, 2007
The Straits Times
TOP private-sector salaries have surged ahead of those in the
public sector and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong revealed last
night just how far the pay of ministers and civil service leaders
has fallen behind.
A minister should be drawing $2.2 million a year or more, according
to benchmarks approved by Parliament in 1994 to ensure competitive
salaries for a competent and honest government.
But their actual salaries have fallen to 55 per cent of the
benchmark, that is $1.2 million, and 'we have to close this gap',
Mr Lee said last night.
He did not say if ministers' pay will be raised fully to this
amount, or when it will go up. Details of the salary changes across
the civil service will be announced in Parliament on April 9 by
Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean, who oversees the public
service.
Speaking at the annual Administrative Service dinner, Mr Lee
explained that salaries had to be reviewed so the public sector can
keep its share of talented Singaporeans.
'This is an urgent problem. We have experienced on previous
occasions the painful consequences of responding too slowly when
the private sector surged ahead,' he said.
In the 1990s, this led to the Administrative Service, the key
service from which most public sector leaders are drawn, losing
entire cohorts of young and good officers.
Administrative Officers (AOs) in their early 30s are at a 'critical
decision point' in their careers, and the Government must keep
their salaries market competitive to retain the able ones.
Today, their salaries are in line with the private-sector benchmark
created for this group. But with salaries for young professionals
moving up, especially in the financial sector, Mr Lee expects
salaries in this group to 'soon come under pressure'.
Fast-growing salaries explain why the Government has embarked on a
review of civil service salaries covering all services where pay
has fallen behind the private sector.
Also important is to review the salaries of ministers, judges and
statutory appointment holders such as the Attorney-General and
Auditor-General, said Mr Lee.
'It is even more critical for us to keep these salaries
competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able
and successful people to be ministers and judges.
'Unless there is a first-class political leadership and judiciary,
the Civil Service, however capable and dedicated, will not be able
to function properly,' he said.
Ministerial and top public sector salaries have been pegged to
those of top private-sector earners since 1994, when Parliament
debated and approved the use of benchmarks to ensure the public
sector continued to attract its share of talent, and to provide for
regular adjustments to keep pace with private-sector
earnings.
There are two benchmarks or formulae spelling out how the salaries
are to be pegged.
The first is the MR4 benchmark for ministers and senior permanent
secretaries.
Yesterday, the Public Service Division released data on the median
incomes of the top eight earners in the six professions to which
MR4 salaries are pegged. Lawyers earned the most, with a median
income among the top eight of $4.29 million.
The second benchmark is the SR9 benchmark for top AOs in their
early 30s.
Mr Lee mapped out how in the years since 1994, the 'scramble for
talent' has become a global phenomenon.
Talented Singaporeans are now being head-hunted by top global
companies as well as by other governments keen to replicate the
Singapore success story.
Top students are turning down government scholarships as their
families or universities were willing to fund their
education.
At the same time, the demands on high-quality governance have gone
up, as a result of globalisation and a more advanced economy, he
said.
With Singapore now operating near the 'leading edge' in public
policy, public-sector leaders cannot rely on the best practices of
other countries, but have to break new ground and find fresh
solutions.
First-class people are therefore needed to anticipate problems,
come up with creative solutions and lead teams.
He said 'first-class governance' which can be provided only by a
top-grade public sector was a 'sustainable advantage' that
Singapore should 'zealously uphold'.
While public officers must serve from a sense of idealism and duty
and not be motivated mainly by financial reward, they should not be
expected to make 'unreasonable financial sacrifices' to be in
public service, he added.
