The final piece. Well, this one says it all... "IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD, ... pay changes ... will be approved by
Parliament."
Amy Khor's point: ...
The aim is that everyone benefits. Other countries may have low
reported salaries, but do they have a government which is good and
efficient?
My view - Is this a rhetorical question? Yah, if not those
governments tend to be removed. There are media and other
government watchdogs i.e. judiciary that hold those government
accountable. Salaries (reported or otherwise) do not keep the
government good or efficient, it just stave off temporary
temptations to take money from elsewhere. please,if this is the
public debate and the way the government is reaching out and
swaying public opinion, methinks they are doing a "terrible and
inefficient" job.
As for scrutiny - I think the hybrid of both suggestions should be
done - i.e. parlimentary debate, external panel and probably the
President (who should be impartial to this whole salary exercise)
be involved. Afterall, wasn't the president role expanded to guard
over the reserves. I think the monetary reimbursement qualifies as
part of the jaga job, don't you think?
The scrutiny: A better way?
March 26, 2007
The Straits Times
IN ALL likelihood, Defence Minister Teo Chee Heans announcement of
pay changes to top public sector pay will be approved by
Parliament.
One could argue, though, that the Government need not even go to
the House.
Since the formula of pegging public sector pay to that of the
private sectors had been approved by Parliament in 1994,
technically the Government does not need further legislative
approval if it wants to raise salaries to match the
benchmark.
But it seems determined to go through a thorough debate, no doubt
to engage and persuade the public on the subject.
It seems intent to show that it is transparent and unapologetic
about any increases, a position in keeping with its long-held
principle of governance that it will do what is right even if it is
unpopular.
As Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Environment and Water Resources)
Amy Khor says: We are transparent. Thats why all these figures
come out.
The aim is that everyone benefits. Other countries may have low
reported salaries, but do they have a government which is good and
efficient?
But some are asking if transparency can be further enhanced if
ministers are detached from setting the benchmarks and determining
pay increases.
As the biggest employer here, however, the public service is in the
best position to know wage trends and recommend changes when
necessary.
Therefore, the process of scrutinising the numbers and approving
the recommendations can be finetuned, say observers.
Professor Neo Boon Siong, director of the Asia Competitiveness
Institute at the LKY School of Public Policy, suggests using the
Public Service Commission (PSC).
Although appointed by the Prime Minister, PSC members cannot be
public officers, MPs, political party members or trade
unionists.
He says: The independent members of the board could make
decisions, with recommendations.
There is a precedent of sorts.
In 1994, a similar panel was set up with Fraser and Neave chairman
Michael Fam as the head.
It was set up to verify Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
(Iras) data and calculations used to determine the salary
benchmarks, which were already approved by Parliament. It also
considered whether the prime ministers salary benchmark was
appropriate.
Its findings supported the benchmarks and the salaries and even
suggested that the PM should get more.
But such panels can be rigged easily with appointees close or
sympathetic to the Government. Academic Ho Khai Leong is not keen
on them.
He prefers the current parliamentary debate route. We need more
justification why they need to increase the pay... If there are
sharper and more critical questions, and government officials are
forced to give answers, then they are more accountable. They will
go through the motions but we want that kind of procedural justice
within the limitations of our system.
