I thought the PAP has always emphasized that they are honest and incorruptible. And they also claimed that in order that they do not succumbed to bribes and corruption, they should be paid close to "market levsl" compensation" based on their formula.
The government also claimed that in order to retain capable and smart individuals, especially scholars, they should also pay the scholars and senior civil servants very well.
They may also claimed that they have a monopoly of smart or very smart individuals.
to be clear, I'm not saying they are dishonest (though they are glib at times.)
I don't begrudge them their salaries. that debate is over. sure, pay them as much as it takes, but they better deliver exceptional results for that level of remuneration.
lack of accountability for all their fuck-ups to maintain their veneer of excellence which has started to peel off through their very mediocre results. that is the nub of it.
it was discussed some time back. successful individuals have a high combination of IQ, EQ and AQ (adversity quotient.) Our top dogs seem to have only 2 out of the 3. pick any 2.
the best and brightest often leave government service. perhaps some hung around after their bond, but by and large, a large chunk of the best leave. a couple hang around to make it to perm sec and beyond. I can't imagine these Uber Achievers being able to hunker down and deal with the bureaucracy of government. would love to see stats on number of scholars leaving service after their bond.
so them having a monopoly of the best and brightest is just another false narrative.