| |
| |
![]() |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
Few would probably take issue with the fact that a minister's pay — in fact anybody's pay — should be linked to his performance. But when his pay packet is also tied to Singapore's economic performance — the higher the gross domestic product (GDP), the bigger the bonus — even some ruling party MPs question the wisdom of such a link.
If Monday's parliamentary debate on pay revisions for ministers and civil servants focused mainly on that "benchmark thing", yesterday's session saw the spotlight being trained on the "GDP bonus".
This bonus is a component which ministers, parliamentary secretaries, top civil servants and MPs are eligible for.
Several of the 13 backbenchers who spoke yesterday had reservations about the GDP bonus, even as they expressed support for the tighter link between pay and performance in the public sector, a distinctive feature of the revisions compared to past exercises.
One common refrain heard in the House was whether it is a fair performance peg to use.
"We all know that a rise in GDP may not benefit all sectors of society equally. Some may even lag behind. I would suggest that the Government consider using indicators that directly impact the livelihood of all Singaporeans," said Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang GRC).
Nominated MP Loo Choon Yong, while "relieved" that a large part of the salary increases are not in the fixed salary component, said that relying on the GDP alone is "simple, convenient but inadequate".
He proposed one other indicator to be considered: That of the total cost of running the Government as a percentage of total revenue.
After all, CEOs in the private sector have to ensure profits are not eroded by increasing costs and expenses, Mr Loo said.
Other suggestions of alternative benchmarks included: The consumer price index and the inflation rate, as a way to keep cost of living affordable and protect savings; citizens' feedback to major public services; the number of jobs created for Singaporeans; and even the number of Singaporeans who migrate.
Based on the latest revisions, ministers will enjoy a GDP bonus of between three and eight months if the economy grows between 5 and 10 per cent or more. But they will not get any bonus if the economy grows by 2 per cent or less.
For example, the entry-level annual salary of a minister this year is expected to include a 5.9-month bonus based on Singapore's estimated GDP growth of between 4.5 and 6.5 per cent.
Mr Teo Chee Hean, Defence Minister and Minister-in-Charge of the Civil Service, heard them all. In his response midway through the debate, Mr Teo pointed out that the Government has to cater to all Singaporeans, not just individual groups.
"Therefore, the GDP is a good indicator of being able to create wealth for all of Singapore, and with that wealth, to make even those Singaporeans who may not benefit directly from the GDP growth better off as well ... through asset enhancement and wealth transfers."
In his hour-long speech, Mr Teo delved into each of the major talking points, raised by both MPs and the public, on ministerial and civil service salaries.
One of these is the question of comparing salaries to the private sector instead of a comparison with what politicians earn in other countries.
The latter would not be comparing apples with apples, said Mr Teo. "Our salaries are clean. Everything is there. You look at the salary of the Prime Minister of Britain or Australia or almost any other country in the world, you don't know what his total compensation package is."
More importantly, though, as civil servants or office-holders in Singapore cannot become office-holders abroad, there is no point in cross-country comparisons, he argued.
"You have to look at what a young man in his 30s or 40s is comparing himself to when he's deciding what he's going to do with his life. These are the relevant market comparisons — not what politicians in France, Finland or Denmark are being paid," said Mr Teo in response to points made by Opposition MPs on Monday.
Another comparison, between the civil service pay increases and the $30 monthly increase for those on Public Assistance, was raised in the House by both a backbencher and Mr Teo.
Said NMP Kalyani Mehta: "If we are going to be generous to civil servants, then let's be generous to the very poor." In response, Mr Teo said: "The needs of these individuals are quite different and we need to find more holistic and flexible ways of looking after their needs."
Commenting on salary revisions in the context of a widening income gap, he added: "Capping the salaries of ministers and top civil servants will not solve this problem. The problem can be best addressed by … sound policies and programmes, like those introduced in the Budget recently … but most importantly by creating jobs and the resources so we can help everyone in Singapore to lift themselves up."
One new issue that cropped up yesterday was the danger of concentrating too much power and money in the hands of top public officers.
MP Denise Phua (Jalan Besar GRC) said: "As responsible leaders, we must be careful not to leave behind a system or 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."
NMP Eunice Olsen argued that the coupling of political and financial power is more likely to lead to the creation of a rogue government.
On this issue, Mr Teo said that the checks are elections and the ruling party's selection process. "If (a person's) motivations are self-serving or to make money, we do not select him. And if we discover that's what he's about after he has come in, we drop him," he said. - TODAY/sh
|
