Just as we all thought that the recent debate on the Gerard Ee's proposal for ministerial salary review is all over, recent spate of events turned on the spotlight squarely on the issue once again. The revelations that two senior civil servants, a commissioner of the SCDF Peter Benedict Lim Sin Pang and the Director of CNB Senior Assistant Commissioner Ng Boon Gay had been put on leave and subsequently relieved of their duties pending investigations by the CPIB on allegations relating to "monie and sexual favours". These are senior grade level civil servants probably paid in the range of $300K or above a year.
How is it that despite the very high level of monetary compensation package and the security of a top level senior civil posting, these two men still succumb to the temptation of sex and money when the occasions arises. These are men are not your average Ah Seng earning $2K a month but instead have the typical profile of a PAP minister holder with one holding a Carl-Duisberg Scholarship and the other a first class mathematics degree holder from NUS on a local merit scholarship. How is it that the arguments that we have been bombarded all days by the PAP government that we need to pay top dollars for top talent in order to prevent corruption did not apparently work on these two men the moment they reached the pinnacle of their civil service careers???Have we got the basic wrong? These are perplexing questions indeed and if we are not careful about it, they will rot the core of our very foundation of a supposedly clean and competence government. Or have the rot already started impervious to our knowledge?
We may argue that corruption on matters relating to sex and money can be found everywhere and are especially prevalent in China where most of our current stock of immigrants originate. However, it must be noted that is because senior civil servants in China are lowly paid so the temptations to corrupt are infintely higher. This is however not the case in singapore where senior civil servants are not only highly paid compare to the peers in the private sector but they also have the added benefit of job security which is often lacking in the private sector.
All in all, I think the current thinking on ministerial and senior civil servants pay is flawed based on the following equation:-
HIGH MONETARY COMPENSATION = ZERO OR LOW CORRUPTION
We have to seriously rethink and retool our model before things start to go drastically wrong.
Wednesday 25 January 2012
Thursday 19 January 2012
PAP Lost a Chance for Bi-Partisanship!
I watched the debate in parliament over the last three days on the issue of the review of ministerial salary. Both sides presented their case but it basically boiled down to this core position. For the WP, you should apply the principle of service first in considering the setting of ministerial salary which is then further supported by the principles of competitive salary and clean wage. For the PAP position, you should apply the principle of competitive salary first (to get top talent is the justification) before considering the principles of service (done via a discount) and clean wage.
These two diametrically different approaches in applying the three key principles endorsed in the review resulted in two different set of numbers which look practically the same at the fixed salary portion but are worlds apart when you scrutinize the variable portion. Also, it produced two different pegs where the WP's is more inclined to a non-elitist broad-based peg and the PAP's more inclined to a elitist peg looking at the mean of the income of the top 500th and 501th earner.
My view is that WP has offered a olive branch to the PAP by proposing on a conciliatory proposal where the political salary are still high but cap to below $1M (for MR4) even in the max bonus scenario grounded on the principles of public service and non-elitism.
Deep in their hearts and in the hearts of most singaporeans, our political office holders do not necessary need to be the ones that made the most money in their previous careers.
Unfortunately, with characteristics distrust and maybe greed, PAP turned down the chance for bi-partisanship by rejecting the WP proposal but instead harped on the similiarity between the fixed salary portion (from both proposals) to confuse and distract the electorate.
These two diametrically different approaches in applying the three key principles endorsed in the review resulted in two different set of numbers which look practically the same at the fixed salary portion but are worlds apart when you scrutinize the variable portion. Also, it produced two different pegs where the WP's is more inclined to a non-elitist broad-based peg and the PAP's more inclined to a elitist peg looking at the mean of the income of the top 500th and 501th earner.
My view is that WP has offered a olive branch to the PAP by proposing on a conciliatory proposal where the political salary are still high but cap to below $1M (for MR4) even in the max bonus scenario grounded on the principles of public service and non-elitism.
Deep in their hearts and in the hearts of most singaporeans, our political office holders do not necessary need to be the ones that made the most money in their previous careers.
Unfortunately, with characteristics distrust and maybe greed, PAP turned down the chance for bi-partisanship by rejecting the WP proposal but instead harped on the similiarity between the fixed salary portion (from both proposals) to confuse and distract the electorate.
Tuesday 17 January 2012
Worker Party Ministerial Salary Proposal
The debate on the proposal for ministerial salary review is over and to nobody surprises, it was passed in parliament due to PAP overriding numerical superiority in voting members in parliament.
Both Chen Show Mao and Gerard Giam put up a spirited performance on the first day that clearly illustrated that they had done their homework thoroughly on the issue. It is good to see after so many years that an opposition party (despite its small numerical number) able to engage and surpass the PAP in a parliamentary debate in key areas of substance, poise and delivery.
If you watch the video, CSM’s eloquence, logic and persuasiveness will rank head and shoulder above most PAP ministers.
Below are a few tables that encapsulate the differences between the WP and the Gerard Ee’s committee proposals.
Monthly Pay Proposed By Committee and WP
Commitee | WP | |
MP | $14,807 | $11,000 |
MR4 | $55,000 | $55,000 |
PM | $110,000 | $99,000 |
No Bonus Scenario (13 months for both Committee and WP Proposals)
2010 Actual Total Pay | Committee Proposed Pay | Committee Proposed Cut | WP Proposed Pay | WP Proposed Cut | |
MP | $199,200 | $192,500 | 3% | $143,000 | 28% |
MR4 | $1,583,900 | $715,000 | 55% | $715,000 | 55% |
PM | $3,072,200 | $1,430,000 | 53% | $1,287,000 | 58% |
Typical Bonus Scenario (20 months for Committee, 15.5 months for WP Proposals)
2010 Actual Total Pay | Committee Proposed Pay | Committee Proposed Cut | WP Proposed Pay | WP Proposed Cut | |
MP | $199,200 | $192,500 | 3% | $143,000 | 28% |
MR4 | $1,583,900 | $1,100,000 | 31% | $852,500 | 46% |
PM | $3,072,200 | $2,200,000 | 28% | $1,534,500 | 50% |
Maximum Bonus Scenario (26.5 months for Committee, 18 months for WP Proposals)
2010 Actual Total Pay | Committee Proposed Pay | Committee Proposed Cut | WP Proposed Pay | WP Proposed Cut | |
MP | $199,200 | $192,500 | 3% | $143,000 | 28% |
MR4 | $1,583,900 | $1,457,500 | 8% | $990,000 | 37% |
PM | $3,072,200 | $2,915,000 | 5%% | $1,782,500 | 42% |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)