Cabinet pay hike
Is retaining talents the only reason?
An interesting viewpoint from an ex-civil servant, who believes it has had a greater impact on the party than on Singapore.
Apr 25, 2007

By Guest Contributor (Tan Ah Gao)
The Civil Service pay increase had been raising much debate and fierce dissatisfaction among the citizens. Most of the dissent had been targeted at the need for such a high pay for the MR4 (cabinet) grade officers, which is pegged to 2/3 of the mean of the 48 top earners in 6 different chosen professions.

The complaints had mainly been focused on how money crazy our Ministers had become and how they make use of the compliant citizens to grossly increase their net worth while the people suffer.

I may be ridiculed for saying so but what interest me is how far these people seems off the mark to me. I have worked with some of these officers & politicians before and being a disgustingly rich man just does not seem to be their mission in life.

Rather, they firmly believe that they are the pillars of Singapore and truly believe that without them and their party, Singapore will fall.

While all the hype had been on the astronomical (to the layman, but peanuts to those who handle billions for Singapore economy) amount of pay increase for the Ministers, it is a certainty that the Ministers will get their pay increase. Personally, I have nothing against the increment.

The money not paid to these people will end up locked in GIC without any real impact on my life. Therefore, I decided to concentrate on what will happen to Singapore and the government after the pay increase. Interestingly, I begin to feel that this increment has a greater impact on the party than it'll have on Singapore.

Loyalty to the civil service or the party

Now, considering that the main reason for the increment is to maintain a competitive wage in the civil service relative to the private sector. This is apparent in the higher ranked officers (SR9 & above).

The civil service is in the service of the government and not the ruling party. However having the ruling party be government for so long, the civil service seems to "belong" to the party.

If an officer in that grade becomes a supporter of the opposition, what will become of him? His civil service career depends a lot on the MR4 officers (Perm Secs, Ministers, etc) and they are definitely pro-ruling party.

Would they allow someone who is pro-opposition to progress to a high post or maybe even an MR4 rank? I am assuming that they would not, regardless of whatever talents he may process. This has the effect of retaining talents in the ruling party instead of talent retention in civil service, which should really be the case.

Monopoly of talents

The most reasonable course of action for such a "renegade" talent would be to leave the civil service. While it is debatable whether he will make it in the private sector, let's assume for argument sake that he does.

If he wants to have a similar pay to what he is getting in the civil service, not many small companies can afford to pay him that much. His pay is pegged to the 15 th top earner of age 32 in Singapore.

A talent that he is, he'll likely land a job in a MNC who can pay him at least equivalent to his civil service pay. These MNCs' operations here depend largely on the ruling party's policy to keep their operating costs low.

If this talent's party of choice speaks up actively against that, then this MNC would also be unlikely to favour him. He would be forced to accept a lower pay (compared to his civil service pay) in a smaller company or start his own business.

While this may not necessarily be a bad thing, this talent is not only deprived of a job in civil service, he is deprived of similar high ranking positions in the private sector.

Thus again the competition for talents in the private sector by offering equivalent if not higher salary than the private sector, will have the effect of retain talents within the ruling party.

Of course, this is highly hypothetical but nevertheless a possible strategy to firmly monopolise talents in the party and putting up the price tag for anyone who decides to do otherwise.

High ministerial pay benefits
the party who controls the government

Besides locking talents within the civil service for use by the party, the highly controversial MR4 benchmark has other uses as well it seems.

MM Lee had named 3 Ministers that had to be wooed from the private sector to hold public office with a great decrease in their then salary. I do believe that it is true and that they ought to be compensated for their monetary sacrifice.

What interests me is who approached them. Or rather, which party, in the capacity of the then government offered them this job. Well, that's a no-brainer. It is the ruling party.

While we must not take away anything from the ruling party for their ability to entice talents into their ranks even if it means a great deduction in salary. This recruitment has no doubt come with the intention of a Ministerial post should they perform as targeted.

Now that they have (or will) increase the Ministerial pay, it will make the above process easier, as these candidates will have one fewer worry when choosing to join the party.

No other party will be able to use the promise of Ministerial post (and with it Ministerial pay) as a promise to lure talents from the private sector. How and if the means is ethical to have such control over the political scene is still a subject of great debate.

The luring of talents will inevitably be into the ranks of the ruling party, further cementing their rule over the political scene. The paradox is that these talents will help the party further their vision of Singapore and we still do not have a choice in our future do we?

Such talents who favour the opposition will no doubt be discarded; well the ruling party will not want an opposition lover in their ranks would they. Thus seen in this light, high Ministerial pay will also monopolise talents within the party.

Again, this is just a hypothetical assumption, but one that is rather realistic and could very well is part of the whole benchmarking strategy.

Usage of the wealth for political gains

My last point of concern has to lie with the amassing of wealth. While this is not a crime, I am nonetheless interested in how this wealth is used. I am not implying that the money is used in unethical means, I wonder (I seriously have no idea) how much of this money is channeled back into political gains for the party.

The usage may be a simple party donation or personal money used in elections (errr, maybe something like abalone porridge) to legal fees when suing your political opponent.

There could be even uglier usage but I believe the ruling party may not be capable of that yet. I sincerely believe that our Ministers and Administrative Officers are men of integrity and building up an empire of wealth is not their main concern in life.

In fact they appear to be frugal men and women who seldom find themselves in the limelight for using their wealth. Nonetheless, more than S$40m each year is being paid to the party members.

In 15 years (assuming that party members hold office for so long), more than S$600m will be paid out to them. That is a sizable obstacle for anyone to overcome should they want to challenge and compete on level terms with the ruling party.

Indeed, the pay rise may have a lot of hidden implications for the political future of Singapore. While the benchmark appears in this argument to favour the ruling party more, it remains a fact that they are kept in office by the majority of the Singaporeans who believes that they are delivering.

This bias may be felt but ignored because we are comfortable with our leaders and see no need for change. Perhaps those who violently oppose the increment do not want to have such a lopsided political scene continue in Singapore. Or maybe nobody had thought about this line of argument and this bias is just a positive side effect of a strong political party.

Comments

Posted by sad man:
"Positive side effect of a strong ruling party". Interesting point of view indeed. It may end up to be the achilles heel of the ruling party as well. Let's wait and see.
It sounds sick that the public taxpayer's money is used to induct people onto PAP again - similar to HDB carrot - and I wonder where is the check and balance - oh yeah - with the President who is 'in the money' as well.

By CHEN:
The author's ex-civil servant background unfortunately colours this article. Much of his analysis rests on a paradigm of "Civil Service vs Politicians", when there is in fact a vista of talent and opportunities in the private sector. Surely the dichotomy is more of "Establishment vs Private Sector and the World"?
The phrase "Loyalty to civil service or to party" is a misleading dichotomy of language. Aren't civil servants supposed to be apolitical, without political party membership?
Even if partisan civil servants were officially allowed in the system, your logic cuts both ways - one who openly joined the incumbent party could easily become a target for criticism by the non-incumbent.
On "Monopoly of talents": many MNCs forbid their staff from becoming involved in domestic political activity - regardless of which side that staff member may support. So this, once again, cuts both ways: it limits your "renegade" as much as his/her "establishment supporter" counterparts.
The analysis on "High ministerial pay benefits the party who controls the government" is also flawed. The opportunity cost of holding political office only occurs when that office is attained: a successful professional could run as an MP, then run for a GRC, without having to give up his day job.
As such, the phrase could have been more precisely written as "High ministerial pay benefits parties with the ability to form the government".
A non-incumbent party in Singapore would have good odds on winning, if they assembled a strong front bench and got them into Parliament for a term or two.
I was somewhat worried to read the claims on "Usage of the wealth for political gains". The author's 600-million dollar allegation assumes every dollar is spent on political activity.
It also assumes that such expenditure would escape the notice of both Singapore's campaign funding regulators and the non-incumbent parties.
In fact if wealth were a tool for buying political success, why do we not see more senior businessmen coming into the political arena on non-incumbent platforms?

By Cherry:
"Rather, they firmly believe that they are the pillars of Singapore and truly believe that without them and their party, Singapore will fall."
Goes to show how out of touch and egoistic the PAP are and the main reason why they think they should be paid so much.

By kwokheng:
"Rather, they firmly believe that they are the pillars of Singapore and truly believe that without them and their party, Singapore will fall."
Oh, so that means they're superior then.
No wonder we're all wrong, all the bloody time.

By kwokheng:
clear sign the PAP has the WSM syndrome.

By xtan:
Think aloud and ask ourselves where does the PAP get its funding from?
For e.g. the church depends on tithing for their funds. Are PAP members above certain level expected to do the same? It is a fact that PAP pays their members and grassroots for activities/work for the party. What about corporate donations to the party? The GLCs?
Why is the PAP so afraid of transparency? Think about it.

By sad man:
When the MM is able to speak so forcefully at the YPAP event, and remain unshakeable in his views on the increased ministerial pay, one wonders who is really pushing all the buttons at the cabinet meetings. PM Lee has highlighted to us that it was MM Lee and SM Goh that were pushing the ministerial salary increase. And we now know who are the 3rd and 4th highest paid ministers in cabinet.
I really feel sad that MM Lee is leaving such a legacy in his final years for PAP. Like Sylvia Lim said of Dr Vivian son's words " Will you die for Singapore" We now know the answer: "How much $$?"

By funky:
I do wonder how many of the 80 PAP MPs support this 'ostentatious' donation and salary increase? Will the ideas of KPI, linking performance of the different ministries to pay take off, as suggested by many P65 MPs, Thio Li Ann, etc.
Or like MM Lee said, the whole discourse was a waste of time? I hope the MPs who swore to take care of the people wise up, break off from PAP and set up an alternative voice. Singapore needs it before the chaos worsen.

http://www.singaporeangle.com/2007/04/mr4_benchmark_is_retaining_tal.html