| |
| |
![]() |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
SINGAPORE: If public sector's pay goes up in tandem with that in the private sector, then civil servants should be subject to the same performance standards demanded in the private sector.
This was an argument put forth by several MPs who spoke on the issue of the civil service pay hike in Parliament on Tuesday.
Many MPs welcomed the inclusion of a performance element in the pay hike.
But they wanted greater transparency and clearly spelt out standards that link pay packets to performance.
MP for Pasir Ris GRC, Michael Palmer, said: "Whether it is true or not, public perception is that working in the civil service provides a person with an iron rice bowl. Even when his performance is unsatisfactory, all that happens is that he does not receive his bonus and does not get promoted. But that is not the case in the private sector. In the private sector, if your performance is poor and consistently poor over a year, or even two quarters in some sectors, you could be out of a job."
MP for Jurong GRC, Halimah Yacob, said: "In essence, we can agree that if the public service is to improve its standards, it needs to reward people based on performance and not on their mere presence at work or based solely on seniority. Currently, the feedback received is that the performance management in the public sector varies across ministries and statutory boards and has to be strengthened. According to one unionist, his statutory board did not share the corporate KPIs (key performance indicators) with the union and staffs until very recently."
MPs said it wasn't just the GDP of the country that should be looked into when deciding performance bonus, but also the respective Ministry's and individual's performance.
While MPs did not dispute the need for competitive salaries to retain talent, a number of them spoke on the need for the civil service to develop non-monetary incentives to attract and keep good people.
MP Denise Phua cautioned on what she called the potent combination of money and power in high offices.
She said: "As responsible leaders, we must be careful not to leave behind a structure that combines power and monetary rewards to such high levels that incumbents are so handcuffed by this lethal combination that they find it hard to let go. And worse, we create an office that potential candidates are so attracted to that they may go for broke just to get there, whether they are suitable or not."
Once again, MPs also zoomed in on what they felt was the shortcomings of the benchmarking system, which is pegged against salaries of the top eight earners in six professions.
MP Denise Phua said the current formula is questionable as it assumes all political office holders and top civil servants will surely end up as top wage earners in Singapore.
Nominated MP Loo Choon Yong called the benchmark "narrow and skewed" because the top eight earners are really a very small group.
He said: "Most compensation experts would recommend to companies, in determining their CEO's salary, a range of 75th percentile of comparable scope of responsibility and size of job. That is, pay according to the top 25% of the comparable group if they wish to be competitive. May I therefore suggest to the government to use the median salary of the top 5 percent of the 6 chosen professional groups, instead of the 8 top persons."
The debate continues on Wednesday. - CNA/ir
|
