First, I believe that people should be reward fairly for what they do. So if the people doing the jobs in the civil service are being underpaid compared to market rate, then I feel that their pay should be increased so they don’t fall behind the rest of Singapore.
Having said that, there is a reason why its called civil service. I think there comes a point in the career of a civil servant when the individual should focus more on the service part then the job part. I think the time comes around the point where you are nearing the top echelons of civil service.
I understand the argument that since the jobs in the top positions of the civil service are crucial, it is important to get the best talents into those positions. I also understand that there is an opportunity cost incurred by not being part of the private sector and to be part of the civil service especially if you’re a real talent. I understand the need to compensate for that cost.
But once you use money to compete for these talents instead of appealing to the desire to serve the nation and what I consider a higher calling, then we forget the ’service’ part in civil service. And that is important. Once the job aspect takes more precedence then the service aspect, then your master becomes different - your master is now your employer (the government) and more immediately, your superiors who appraise you for your promotions ( and salary revisions ) instead of being the people of Singapore.
And I believe once that subtle shift in perception of what it means to be a civil servant changes from a higher calling to just another job (which does some good for the nation but one which you wouldn’t have taken if the pay hadn’t been competitive to the private sector) then your goals as a civil servant changes. Instead of doing what is best for Singapore, the aim becomes to please your employers and further your own career. And Singapore as a whole loses out.
Finally, I think the people in civil service and government should be people whose morality cannot be affected by money. We shouldn’t give more money to ensure people don’t be corrupt. We should give more money because it is fair to give them that amount of money for the work they do and their contributions to Singapore. To say X amount of money is enough to prevent corruption is to me naive because someone else could always offer X + 1. But if the argument is that there is indeed a threshold where a person would be less susceptible to be corrupt (if not totally not corrupt), then shouldn’t there also be a threshold where enough pay is enough to want to keep the person from jumping ship to the private sector.
And there is indeed such a threshold. It is the benchmark to private sector salaries. But the benchmark will change won’t it. And if such a benchmark changes which means the threshold changes, then by working backwards, doesn’t that mean the people we have are just being bought off now at current market rates so they won’t be corrupt.
And if so, doesn’t that mean they have a price. Which comes back to the first point. If there is a price, there is always an X + 1.
Hannah | 23-Mar-07 at 11:56 am | Permalink
I heard the news this morning too, and I started imagining the spectrum of criticisms people will start hurling at the government for being money-minded.
However, I think that as long as civil servants do not demand a paycheck that is ludicrously more than their equivalents in the private sector, there should not be a cause for complaint. Running a company is tough enough. Running a country cannot be easier.
I agree with the need for an emphasis on the “service” in “civil service”. Unfortunately, we operate on a secular system. As such, the notion of civil servants choosing to serve the nation because it is a higher classing is ideal but ultimately idealistic.
iantimothy | 23-Mar-07 at 1:08 pm | Permalink
I wonder if most people consider what is idealistic as ultimately unattainable. Is being unattainable an inherent quality of any idealistic value system.
Hannah | 23-Mar-07 at 6:19 pm | Permalink
Idealism is the antithesis of materialism. Unfortunately, it is also in opposition with naturalism, pragmatism and realism - which are not necessarily negative value systems. Strangely, though, pragmatism and realism are gaining bad repuations as value systems of the uninspired and cynical.
There’s no simple answer because humans are complex.
2 cents | 23-Mar-07 at 10:24 pm | Permalink
if we get people who only take up the responsibility because they want to be paid a certain way, then, i think it is fair to conclude that these people are probably working more for money than for your total interests( these people possess the wrong kind of spirit - it is as simple as that). and when i say total, i mean all that you were meant to be not just about the superficialities that money can buy you or provide. because, what can be bought, it can also enslave and exploit and you can’t be free to become the kind of people you meant to be - a mulitude of voices!
i dont know about you, i have problem with people who tell me you can only get good people if you pay them right. that makes them very special,very exclusive and highly valuable isn’t ? wouldn’t that give them undue power over your lives too?
next, surely the people understand that money chase can only be bad for society? if that’s true, why do we want to subscribe to that kind of philosophy?
nope, we need to look for good people who do not believe in serving mammon. we need to look for people who will find a better way in motivating citizens towards living rewarding lives apart from monetary incentives or rewards.
failing, the social divide will widen and the social economic costs will be high.
lastly,if you are incorruptible, you are incorruptible with or without money. money never comes into the equation for such people so the spin by the veteran is just simply laughable.
nnn | 23-Mar-07 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
nex time you going to review, let me know. i wont post
The Crane | 23-Mar-07 at 11:45 pm | Permalink
Why should one want to be CIVIL and be called a SERVANT?
The word CIVIL SERVANT is demeaning.
Even the title of “Priest or Nun” sounds better than a CIVIL SERVANT.
The days of Slavery are over, right?
In the business world, one is called a CEO, President, MD, Executive etc etc.
So one should be pay for one’s capability. Be it selling Coca Cola or selling Singapore as an investment location.
iantimothy | 24-Mar-07 at 12:58 am | Permalink
Hello, 2 cents, are you nnn? I always show all the comments made here unless its spam. Apparently, a few spam does get through akismet so I have to check first. There is this bot that is quite smart. Dont know how come can get through one. Sorry hor..
Actually, I respectfully disagree. I don’t think the word civil servant is demeaning. I was brought up with the stories of people like yue fei and the biblical stories of servant leaders so I don’t believe it is a bad thing to be called a civil servant. Although maybe now this term has been used to mean a lot of other things which equates it wrongly with slavery.
And I do agree with you that people should be rewarded fairly for their capabilities and what they have done to serve the nation, but in a way, I carry the idealistic notion that once being in the positions of authority in the government and civil service, and once the pay has hit a threshold where the individual is much better off than most Singaporeans, then maybe the focus shouldn’t be on the pay to keep pace with the richer members of the private sector, but the enrichment of the lives of the rest of the citizens.
Of course, I don’t propose to know how much that threshold is. I guess that is why there is the benchmark. But the very idea of that just seems to take away the gloss of the notion that the aim of being in the civil service and government is to fulfill a higher more noble calling. I guess its a personal mental barrier I have because I grew up with the belief that to serve one’s nation, one must sacrifice one’s own personal gains.
Molly | 24-Mar-07 at 5:18 am | Permalink
I’m offering to pay my maid $5000 per month and let her moonlight at 10 different places because I want to attract the most talented maid and make sure that she’s not corrupt and won’t steal my jewellery.
iantimothy | 24-Mar-07 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Firstly, Molly…Didn’t know you so rich leh…..wah.can afford maid.
But seriously, by using the maid example, no wonder people like the crane thinks most Singaporeans consider civil servants = slaves = demeaning. Which isn’t true. Not saying that a maid = slave = demeaning, but I do believe that the word maid does carry certain negative connotations in this context.
Anyway, you got to separate the two things. You could pay her $5000 because she deserves it. You would pay her $5000 because you don’t want her to be corrupt and steal your jewellery. Those two reasons don’t always go together.
Finally…wah..you got a lot of valuable jewellery is it….Can tell me where you keep it and your address?
Molly | 24-Mar-07 at 1:33 pm | Permalink
Actually the sugar daddy is going to pay lah. And I’m still wondering how I can attract the most talented sugar daddies.
Maid carries negative connotation meh? But any substitute words we use (domestic worker) will eventually carry the same connotation if people’s thinking don’t change. Molly is trying to give the occupation a positive connotation by offering her $5000 a month. (Too low? OK, I might have to peg her pay to the top civil servants’ too.)
Molly wants to pay her maid well to attract the greediest most talented maid who can clean windows without falling downstairs. I think the salary will also make her less corrupt! (Which reminds me… if her salary is below the benchmark for a few years, do you think she might have been corrupt for the past few years?)
Molly has a lot of jewellery in a safe, but she can’t wear them until she is 65 years old.
Ned Stark | 25-Mar-07 at 2:10 am | Permalink
I remember hearing from somewhere that if a person has an income of 200k a year, he is part of the high income group in Singapore. If top civil servants are getting 1 million a year…
With regards to idealism, i feel that while it is untenable in the real world, we should not discard it aside. Let it be the goal and let us work towards it. In fact without ideals of a few fellas in the past, the progress that humanity has made would not have come to past.
iantimothy | 25-Mar-07 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
Hey Ned! Nice to see you on my blog. Yup, I agree with you. Just because something seems untenable and unattainable does not mean we don’t strive for it.
About the other post, there was no offense intended towards the females. I hope it didn’t offend anyone…
Young PAP | 25-Mar-07 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
I can’t see why some forumers in our local chatrooms are questioning Ministerial pay rises and pegging our Minister’s pay to those in other countries.
http://youngpapblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/bill-gatesgeorge-sorosmother-theresa.html
24 March 2007
Bill Gates+George Soros+Mother Theresa - How Much $$
Posted by elaina olivia chong at 4:56 PM
Money is the proverbial carrot. No matter how many people put themselves on the moral high ground, Money still talks for most others. If you want to get a job done you can’t do well yourself, pay some one well to do it well. If you want to get a job superbly well done, pay superbly more. Similarly, if we want Singapore to stay on the “Best Of” world list for a lot of things, we jolly well got to pay top dollar for the best people who can keep us right up there.
I can’t see why some forumers in our local chatrooms are questioning Ministerial pay rises and pegging our Minister’s pay to those in other countries. Spore isn’t like many other economies like the States, Britain or even Hong Kong where their economies can still remain alive even if their politicians are not making the best decisions. Not only are these economies self sufficient, they have people resources - to the extent where Supply far Exceeds Demand for geniuses at the top.
In many of these first world nations (whose Ministers’ pays have been “pegged” to ours), their economic engines are matured and almost self-piloting. These governments have inherited the fruits of their political forefathers and are now able to concentrate on improving the social and non-economic welfares of its peoples and say, spend time to build international relations with countries like us.
This government put Singapore, a country with no resources, with no historical ties or allies to begin with, on the world map in less than half a century. But will this last forever?
It takes more than a few good men to make a tiny red dot like Singapore a shining star it is today. Not an easy feat, and is not a task that every man on the street can do. Only the very best in the 4-5million we have, can.
Everyday is a new challenge for Singapore to stay competitive and ahead of economies thousands of times our size. If Ministers at the top stop what their doing; or aren’t clever enough to devise policies to keep us ahead of the global league, our economy will crumble. There’s no two ways about it. Some one has got to do it and able to do it very well.
Today, we have the PAP with a number of good men. Will we have the same people tomorrow and always? I’m not sure. I find it rather myopic and sadly presumptuous for so many of these forumers to assume that Singapore is forever going to be where it is, and that we will forever have exceptional geniuses willing to throw their lives to keep Singapore on its feet.
How many of our capable Singaporeans are willing to turn away high paying expatriate positions overseas? And choose instead, to stay home in Singapore, hold arms to protect and ensure the economic comforts for our families and posterity?
One of the ways and I’m not saying it is the only way, is to pay for them and pay them very well . To help keep them in Singapore, attract them into civil service or the PAP where they will join the “economic militia” and keep the Singapore flag flying high for a very long time
The life of a Minister is not attractive. How many are willing to sacrifice every evening either at Meet the People Sessions, chairing Review Committees and carrying another baby in a HDB kopitiam even on precious weekends?
A platoon with the acumen of Bill Gates, risk appetite of George Soros and the heart of Mother Theresa, I would think. And the compensation? Priceless. Haven’t we all heard this all too often, “Pay Peanuts Get Monkeys”.
All that matters to me is for Singapore to stay ahead of the game becuase I choose to stay here. We sorely need more than a few Good Men to continue serving at the top so that our economy will continue its bull run. With a flourishing economy, Ministerial pay increments will pale in comparison to the prosperities and fortunes Singapore will be able to bring to its people. Because then, the man on their street will get his pay raise too.
iantimothy | 25-Mar-07 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
OK. Are you shitting me? Firstly, our Ministers’s pay are not pegged to those in other countries. It is benchmarked against the top earners in Singapore.
I just realized something. If we are attracting people who are driven by money and not passion for the country, and if we benchmark against the top earners, don’t you think that policies in Singapore will be to help the top earners earn more so that the next benchmark will be higher? Just a thought. Maybe that explains the increasing income-gap? A bit simplistic I know. But I’ve always believe in something. If someone knows you are measuring something, there will always be people who game that system.
Also, when Singapore first became independent, the early leaders made Singapore what is it by serving the nation. I don’t believe they were paid a lot then. After they made Singapore what it is now, I also don’t think they came back to claim ‘bonus’ for what they achieved. Yet now, we are saying pay these people even before they have done anything because they are smart and will solve the problems that we face now and in the future. If you ask me, some of our leaders do deserve it cos they have proven themselves. No need to question that. But not all.
Also, I hate it. The spirit in which you have written the post, has in one broad stroke made all our leaders looked like they are solely motivated by money. And that is an insult to the leaders I respect.
Anyway, I believe the comments on your blog have expressed everything that I could possibly say as a reply to your comment.
I love PAP | 25-Mar-07 at 9:47 pm | Permalink
Ms Elaina Olivia Chong is the Vice Chairperson of Young PAP Women committee ok!
U should show your respect.
http://www.youngpap.org.sg/abt_ypw2.shtml
family man | 25-Mar-07 at 11:33 pm | Permalink
Yes, that is why our govt is so out of touch with the people. The ministers KPI are gauged on the GDP they grow, the revenue they make for Singapore. That is why Dr Vivian will not allow the Public assistancefor the poor to increase to $400, cos it is a drain to our reserves. They are measured by how much the Restructured Hospitals can bring in Revenue, that is why there is a separate queue for A class and C class wards. But because they bring in so much revenue, they deserve their pay rise. We, the people of Singapore are royally SCREWED.
iantimothy | 25-Mar-07 at 11:40 pm | Permalink
Hello family man, i don’t know about the ‘royally’ part..sounds too elite for most of us..anyway, recently, my gf had a terrible one day experience with regards to Singapore’s health care…got bounce here and there and made to wait long long..whole day wasted..I don’t know about overseas so can’t say we are better or worse than other people but when she described her day, i think a good amount of frustration could have been avoided.
Ned Stark | 26-Mar-07 at 12:20 am | Permalink
Ian,
my name says it all. I see the young pap team has come into ur blog too…
Nah…i am not female
I cant imagine them using Mother Teresa as an example. I dun think the living Saint will scold people for being lazy, in fact i think she wouuld help a person IRREGARDLESS of whether she was lazy a not.
iantimothy | 26-Mar-07 at 1:06 am | Permalink
Hello Ned… yup..somehow my blog got into their radar…
anyway, i don’t understand why they used mother Teresa as an example too. She did great work without getting paid lots of money and she chose to do it in the absence of getting paid lots of money.
Ned Stark | 26-Mar-07 at 1:20 am | Permalink
Ian,
And she is not one who judges people. Ah well, but i must say that if one wants to promote the ypap blog, that post has done the job. 80 comments and counting …heh..
Acitizen | 26-Mar-07 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Heard on the radio this morning.
High pay of ministers n C.S. discourage corruption …. will be cheaper for all of us than corruption.
… and we need to pay for the performance/capability.
So what percentage of pay for performance and what percentage for discouraging corruption??
Can buy the pay for competency part but …. pay to dissuade corruption???
Cannot remember any CEO pay having a ‘discourage corruption’ component.
History of cases of corruption tells us that it is not about the amount of money you are paid or have but the person’s greed/dishonesty. In other words personal integrity.
Therefore cannot see how high pay dissuade or prevent a agreedy/dishonest person from putting his/her hand into the till?? … put another way .. are we saying that anyone who is lowly paid are incline to be corrupt and vice versa???
Oh dear!! if this is so, will it not put most of us into the corrupt category.
Gosh!! Better ask my boss for a very high salary, otherwise I will be suspect!!
iantimothy | 26-Mar-07 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Please, they already have their sights on you. Notice that camera following you around…
Yeah. But I do agree with you. I whole heartedly believe that our civil servants deserve to be paid well if they serve Singapore well although I can’t profess to know how well and admit that sometimes the amount does seem too much for me to comprehend (but then again, I’m not a civil servant so while I believe it is hard to be one, I can’t know how hard).
I also agree that we shouldn’t say pay to avoid corruption. I mean, if we had to pay to avoid corruption, doesn’t say much about our leaders (and I do consider top civil servants our leaders and not just ministers…). I mean, I personally do not believe some of our leaders would be corrupt just because they weren’t paid to be not corrupt. 10cents, 10 dollars, 10 million, if a man is not corrupt, no matter what the salary you give him, he won’t be corrupt.
If the argument is that we reward you for being a man who will never be corrupt, then that is actually something I think I can live with. But that would be based on past history and not future hope.
So, say some of our leaders who have retired who have shown that they weren’t corrupt while serving Singapore well, I think it would be perfectly fair to give them like some super duper pension or something .
iantimothy | 26-Mar-07 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
Ok. I just thought of an example. Like Lim Bo Seng. He was a war hero right. I remembered reading somewhere that his descendants are entitled to free education or something. Not sure how true is that. But if say we had a really good leader, and he really did awesome stuff for our country, I think its perfectly fine to take care of his family and descendants (up to a certain generation). When I say take care, I don’t really know what sort of package I’m talking about but I’m sure if we wanted to, we could really implement something like this rather than pay now and hope for the best.
WANG | 26-Mar-07 at 5:26 pm | Permalink
Ian
I am not going to comment on the Singapore Ministers. What I would just like to highlight that every politician will ge their dues sooner or later for your oft mentioned countries via pegged life pension or superannuation or other costs and tax free and normally inclusive spouse(even childeren) in most OECD countries. So it is a case of either paying upfront or later.
Young PAP | 28-Mar-07 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
I have a lot of empathy for our Ministers. They do a job that very few people can do and they deserve to be paid accordingly. The question to be asked by the critics of their proposed pay increase is this- are you criticizing because you honestly do not believe that the Ministers are entitled to a pay increase or is it because you are simply envious?
[youngpapblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/green-eyed-monster.html]
iantimothy | 28-Mar-07 at 5:33 pm | Permalink
I can answer that now. I am not envious. So then, now can we proceed with the real discussion.
Ned Stark | 29-Mar-07 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
Hmmmm…the modus operandi of these fellas seems to involve spamming ur blog. If they are really from ypap as some netizens believe, then i must say they are attempting to attract attention to their blog. In fact there are hundred over comments on the section regarding pay.
iantimothy | 30-Mar-07 at 12:34 am | Permalink
Hey Ned Stark,that is why for the last comment, I did something I have never done, which is to edit it. I left the url but removed it as a hyperlink. I don’t want to help young pap’s blog go to the top of the search results for this issue. I don’t believe young pap is dumb. I do believe they know how the net works, and if we all accept their comments with the hyperlinks, we are going to push their page to the top of the results for searchs related to this issue which might drown out other points of view.
Having said that, I’m feeling uncomfortable about what I have done. I don’t like altering other people’s comments. So, I guess that is why I left the url. People who are interested can still go to that site.