Here we go again, with the Singapore government talking about the need to 'close the gap' in order to make sure that the public-private pay gap are not widened, in order to "ensure competitive salaries for a competent and honest government." PM Lee also spoke about the need to 'retain talent.' We have all heard the argument before. Common folks (including taxi drivers) have often complained about the high salaries the ministers are drawing. Some people have even said that the way to become a millionaire is to become a Minister of the Singapore government!
This time, as I read and reflect upon it, I think PM Lee does have a point, and I applaud his courage to bring it out. Let me explain by giving three possible reasons.
#1 - COURAGE: It is not easy for a high profile minister to talk about salaries. Who dares to talk about one's own pay in a conservative Asian culture, where salaries spoken in public can be taboo! Look what happened to TT Durai of the NKF case. Do ministers need that level of pay increase to sustain their daily lives? It is actually more symbolic than anything else, that the pay amount makes it more palatable for talented people to consider entering into the political arena. A good economy does depend on a good government, and more often than not, nobody will even want to campaign openly for it, thinking that the government can take care of itself. In a sense, the government should take care of its interest, for afterall, they are working for the interest of the country in the first place, isn't it?
#2 - OPPORTUNITY COST: The current ministers DO have better pay in the private sector. I think many corporations will be prepared to pay PM Lee to be their CEO, at even double his current salary. There are also other ministers who have to take a pay cut to serve in the ministry. It will be less than optimal if a minister have to take on a second job to restore any difference. How can a minister then allocate fully his time and resources to the service of the nation?
#3 - LACK OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE APPRECIATION: In many cultures, people tend to talk behind the backs of influential people. They are more liberal with negative comments rather than positive feedback. At times, I even think, that it takes one to do SEVEN GOOD deeds in order to trigger some level of public recognition, while on the other hand, it takes a simple ONE BAD EVENT to unleash a storm of protests and complaints. Call it a form of compensation.
I think back on those social organizations where social-workers receive one of the lowest pay in the whole economy, yet people continue to say that the work they do are 'priceless.' Isn't it common to hear positive comments about social workers helping an unemployed widow of many children find a job? Yet how many people will raise their hands to become social workers? Not many, as one of the reasons is that it does not pay adequately). Jobs that result in 'obscene profits' are on the other hand not as widely acknowledged to be beneficial to society. Think about horse-racing, gambling and some forms of investment trading, which require shrewd/cunning politicking and deceitful strategizing.
The way the economy works is basically like the following levels of profitability/contribution.
Level 1 - HIGH Pay and HIGH Sociological/Ethical Societal Contribution
Level 2 - LOW Pay and HIGH Sociological/Ethical Societal Contribution
Level 3 - HIGH Pay and LOW Sociological/Ethical Societal Contribution
Level 4 - LOW Pay and LOW Sociological/Ethical Societal Contribution
Ministerial pay traverse either at levels 1 and 3, as far as the commonfolk is concerned. PM Lee seems to think that the ministers are at Level 2. Assuming that the Singapore ministers are on the high end of societal contribution, even assuming that their pay is relatively low, they are undisputedly the highest paid group of social workers or civil servants. The rest of the people like actual door to door social workers, religious organizations and civic self-help groups are at the mid to bottom of the rung. I would suggest that no matter how we put it, a majority of social organizations and non-profits will be at Level 2. Even if we were to assume that theGovernment ministers will be at level 2, it is most certainly the HIGH END of level 2. Nevertheless, I will suggest the following.
Firstly, let them 'close the gap' in order to attract and retain good people in leadership. Secondly, let them 'close the gap' as long as they are able to fight for the poor and the marginalized in society (not just the pay differential among top servants in public/private sectors). Finally, let them 'close the gap' and to promote a behaviour that does not close the people's gab.
ks
Link - "Top govt salaries far behind private sector's"
7 comments:
Just let me ask a question: Which company wants to hire a government official (nearing 60) with absolutely no experience in the private sector?
Yes, it takes courage to announce raising of salaries. Yes, we need to pay people money if we want talents. But have these talents shown their abilities? Or has the status quo in Singapore just been maintained? Or has it gotten worse?
why I think your reasons are wrong:
1. Civil servants means servants to the people not "master". The servants should not be motivated by money to serve the country and the people. In a way a high pay will attract greedy materialistic leaders. This reasons applies to all charitable and religious organizations as well. I think not "courage" but "thick skinness" for one to raise one's pay. Does it mean that the leaders all over the world from past till present are useless and not talented? ( the pay of singapore ministers are a gap higher then the highest paid ministers in the world)
2. As the previous comments said, most of these ministers do have experience in total private companies.
3. Isn't $1.2m not high enough? Do they have difficulty meeting end meets? or cope with high standard of living? I for sure do not want leaders who work for greed!
Hi,
Thanks to all who make comments on my blog. (Reminder: As a personal blog policy, anonymous postings or unknown ids will not be considered for any response.)
ks
1) Ideally speaking, you are right. A servant should serve the master. In our interconnected world, it is more true to see servant in terms of serving moments rather than a perpetual state of servanthood. This means how one serves depends on the situation. Sometimes a top official serves by sacrificing his weekends to attend meetings and charity functions. Other times, they do have people reporting to them as well, and most of the time, they 'serve the people' through delegation.
Will high pay attract greedy materialistic people? Certainly. That does not mean that it will NOT attract good people, who are not greedy or materialistic. No system is perfect. As for 'thick-skinned' vs 'courage', I think it is plain semantics. Whether one sees it as courage or thick-skinned, it has about the same effect.
3) Again, I have said that the increase is 'symbolic' rather than anything else. I truly doubt if the motivation is greed. It is more likely a dangling of a bigger carrot, that on the one hand admits that: "Yes the pay is lower than what you are getting now, but it is not THAT low." More important, I doubt financial rewards alone can attract. It is more likely a combination of the increase in stature for people entering politics, as well as a 'minimum sum' for prospective politicians to consider. Having said that, it will be a bonus for the country for people to come forward and truly serve sacrificially. Like trying to win the top prize by opening can tabs of a beverage competition, chances of getting a good candidate who meets all the noble requirements are slim. Yet there is a country that needs to be governed. The next best thing the government can do, is to be pragmatic about it. Use money.
Thanks for your comments.
ks
Zixu,
The question "How much is enough?" is a slippery one. Ask 10 persons, and there will be ten different kinds of responses.
So far, I do not see any disagreements with regards to the logic for salary increments for ministers. Ministers also do NOT need that increment for their daily needs. Your main contention is basically the benchmarking process. That too, I do not disagree.
In a utopian world, where everything is ideal and perfect, people will be falling over themselves to volunteer to serve the country, regardless of the amount of pay they get. In a utopia, these people will be perfectly compensated.
The world we live in is nowhere close to such a world. Instead, it is feeding from a culture that is built on capitalism. 'Greed' in capitalist terms is now called 'ambition'. 'Service' is understood in a reciprocal sense in the form of you-scratch-my-back and i-scratch-yours. 'Self-centeredness' in society is fast replacing 'self-sacrifice'. 'Rulers' are enthusiastically called 'servants'. We are increasingly trapped in this vicious cycle and there seem to be no way to break it.
My support for the raising of salaries is contingent on the following three things:
#1 - Broaden the scope of attraction of good people
#2 - Broaden and embolden the government to support the poor and demarginalized in society
#3 - Promote greater freedom and openness in a young country trying to grow up in a big world.
Finally, we can think of the capitalist society in terms of 3 stages: 1) a big tall adult, 2) a thin youth, and 3) a skinny little boy, taking a shower with a single tap. Lining up according to height, the first man gets the bulk of the water. Some of the water splashes moderately to the youth, and finally the droplets of water fall on the little boy. In order for the little boy to get more drops of water, the system requires we will need to turn on a bigger tap onto the first person. In other words, in such a world, in order to benefit the rest, it always starts at the top.
Until we change the culture, it is either we wait for the future utopia which we do not know when will arrive, or we do something in the present to create the next best thing.
ks
zixu,
Your arguments are mostly old ones, which has already been addressed previously. The sentiment I pick up is that the salary increments are grossly unpopular, and that the pragmatism machinery and the spread of it, is for lack of a better word, ‘sinful’, as it starts from the mind. Your assertion is also that no utopia can ever exist, and you even mention Canada, albeit with a tinge of sarcasm. Yet your arguments remain basically the same, that the use of money is not the way to attract good leaders, comparing even to those in many parts of society, who are struggling to make ends meet. While you recognize the validity of the capitalism example, I am not sure if my earlier arguments, and its dependencies have been understood correctly. I will instead assume that your intentions are good, and well meaning, and will not engage on arguments that borders on personal attacks. I make myself known openly, rather than hiding under a pseudonym, and hope that readers will know that they are interacting with a known visible person and not an unknown object that is cold and heartless.
Assuming that you do understand, assuming also that your ethical stand is far superior to the stance of pragmatism for the Singapore context, and assuming also that I do not disagree with your premise, what then do you suggest that the government can do to attract new and younger more capable leaders?
Personally, while sympathetic to the large number of negative responses to the salary issue, I am disappointed at the lack of positive constructive ideas from them. It is one thing to shoot down a proposal and do nothing about it. It is yet another to offer an alternative. Most of the Internet arguments that I have read seem to fly off very well initially, but run out of steam when coming to constructive proposals. Otherwise, the case against the salary increase will be watertight.
ks
I wandered into this exchange while searching the web for the figures on ministerial salaries.
I can remark that in democratic countries influx of talents into politics is not motivated by high pay, but by desire to serve the voters, to bring about changes voters desire, etc.
There is a fundamental difference between a country and a corporation – the citizens do not get employed by a country, they are born and raised there, and they are by and large are not free to choose the employer. Therefore any reference to the necessity of paying ministers on par with corporate high–flyers is fundamentally unjust, provided it is a democratic country, of course. However, Singapore is run as a corporation, its citizens are treated as employees rather than citizens (perhaps they aren't too badly treated after all, but that's another story), and these indecently high salaries of public servants prove lack of democracy here, once again.
Post a Comment