<iframe style="top: -9999em; width: 10px; height: 10px; position: absolute;" id="twttrHubFrame" tabIndex="0" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1324331373.html" frameBorder="0" allowTransparency="true" name="twttrHubFrame" scrolling="no"></iframe>NMP wannabe, Govt "independent" mouth piece,
What's enough to attract political talent?
We need that elusive social consensus on how much is right and necessary
by Eugene K B Tan
04:46 AM Jan 05, 2012
Ministerial pay has been a hot-button issue ever since salaries benchmarks were introduced in 1994. The thinking then was that the use of benchmarks - a new management innovation of Xerox in 1980 - would reduce the political sting each time the issue of ministerial salaries was discussed in Parliament prior to an upward adjustment. But there was little buy-in for the benchmark.
The over-arching approach in the '90s and 2000s was a self-fulfilling one: That good ministers and bureaucrats are critical to Singapore's success and progress, and that it necessitates paying them their due worth, pegged to market value.
In the past, the Government consciously chose not to be overly concerned by the adverse reactions and stuck to its guns and the argument that ministers deserve what is due to them. In reality, it has through the years exacted a political cost on the Government, and perhaps enervated the meaning of public and political service.
UNPRECEDENTED PROCESS
The Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries recommends a significant pay-cut for key office holders. Nonetheless, behind the headline-grabbing figures, the committee also believes it has re-calibrated the compensation system so that the fundamental basis of a competent and committed government is left intact.
What is different this time is that there is an independent committee appointed to look into the divisive issue of ministerial pay.
In 1994, it was top civil servants who proposed the benchmarks (which also applied to them). This time, there is strong corporate expertise on the committee, recognising that it would be wholly unrealistic not to give due consideration to how public service pay compares with that of that of the private sector elite.
Both, after all, seek to draw from the same talent pool.
TOO MUCH OR NOT ENOUGH?
To be sure, the recommendations will not appeal to every Singaporean. For some, the recalibrated pay benchmarks are still too high, particularly if they hold rigidly to the United States presidency pay benchmark.
For others, the concern centres on whether the recommendations will short-change Singapore and Singaporeans in the long term. Specifically, will Singapore be able to continue to attract sufficient talented and committed Singaporeans for political service?
They point to how the "new normal" political climate has upped the demands of political office, the quotient for sacrifice. There is nothing wrong with that since politics is not for the faint-hearted especially if one wants to serve at the highest levels.
But cognizance has to be given to the reality that for talented Singaporeans, responding to a call to political service is but one option among many. We need to be mindful not to push this public service logic and sacrifice too far. As much as serving Singaporeans through political office is a calling, it is by no means a priesthood. Often, as in the private sector, you get what you pay for.
Benchmarking and the discount factor will never be free of controversy: Questions and polemics will abound not only on why the benchmarks were chosen but also how they were chosen.
The discount factor "to signify the sacrifice that comes with the ethos of political service", on top of a less generous benchmark, has increased marginally from 33 to 40 per cent. It reiterates the self-sacrificing notion that those at the top need to pay attention to the general good rather than focusing on their private financial affairs.
Is that too much or too little of a discount? Ultimately, any pay formula will need constant and robust review. This means regular reviews as suggested by the committee.
WORST CASE OUTCOMES
There will also be the reality of trade-offs in pursuing one policy option over another.
What is the worst and best outcome for Singapore and Singaporeans if the recommendations are implemented? (Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has indicated that the Government intends to accept the recommendations.)
The worst case scenario would be a double whammy. Political pay remains a contested issue, resulting in the continuing loss of political capital for the Government. As has happened in the past, any discussion of policy flaws could be inflected with the issue of political pay, undermining the ability to examine issues in an objective and rational manner.
And at the same time, political pay is viewed as out of touch with the market value for that sort of ability. If capable and committed Singaporeans shy away from political office because the sacrifice asked is perceived to be excessive and inequitable, Singapore will be poorer for it and the virtuous cycle of good governance will be severely undermined.
BEST CASE SCENARIO
What about the best outcome? First, political pay no longer is an issue that exercises Singaporeans unnecessarily. There is strong consensus among citizens about what compensation is needed for a capable and committed government. In this way, policies are not viewed through the prism of political pay.
Second, the revised benchmarks make political service more attractive to talented and dedicated Singaporeans. Those who were put off by the relatively high pay under the current benchmarks might now re-evaluate their keenness to serve the larger good through political office. The larger the pool of political talent that we have, the better for Singapore.
WHITHER PUBLIC SERVICE ETHOS?
The committee's recommendations, and the debate in Parliament on Jan 16, provide more food for thought. There is a larger imperative behind this effort to right-size political pay that should also be deliberated. How do we encourage and nurture an ethos of public and political service among Singaporeans in a young society like ours, where there is the abiding focus on one's market value?
The ministerial salaries review is primarily concerned with the value of political service - how much to pay? - but the subtext is about the values that undergird our society.
The subject of salaries, for politicians and top civil servants, is inherently contested. But social consensus on what is needed to attract talented men and women to serve the larger good is vital. There has not been such consensus since 1994 when the existing benchmarks were introduced. It is now time to build a strong and sustainable consensus, notwithstanding the limitations of benchmarks.
Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.
What's enough to attract political talent?
We need that elusive social consensus on how much is right and necessary
by Eugene K B Tan
04:46 AM Jan 05, 2012
Ministerial pay has been a hot-button issue ever since salaries benchmarks were introduced in 1994. The thinking then was that the use of benchmarks - a new management innovation of Xerox in 1980 - would reduce the political sting each time the issue of ministerial salaries was discussed in Parliament prior to an upward adjustment. But there was little buy-in for the benchmark.
The over-arching approach in the '90s and 2000s was a self-fulfilling one: That good ministers and bureaucrats are critical to Singapore's success and progress, and that it necessitates paying them their due worth, pegged to market value.
In the past, the Government consciously chose not to be overly concerned by the adverse reactions and stuck to its guns and the argument that ministers deserve what is due to them. In reality, it has through the years exacted a political cost on the Government, and perhaps enervated the meaning of public and political service.
UNPRECEDENTED PROCESS
The Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries recommends a significant pay-cut for key office holders. Nonetheless, behind the headline-grabbing figures, the committee also believes it has re-calibrated the compensation system so that the fundamental basis of a competent and committed government is left intact.
What is different this time is that there is an independent committee appointed to look into the divisive issue of ministerial pay.
In 1994, it was top civil servants who proposed the benchmarks (which also applied to them). This time, there is strong corporate expertise on the committee, recognising that it would be wholly unrealistic not to give due consideration to how public service pay compares with that of that of the private sector elite.
Both, after all, seek to draw from the same talent pool.
TOO MUCH OR NOT ENOUGH?
To be sure, the recommendations will not appeal to every Singaporean. For some, the recalibrated pay benchmarks are still too high, particularly if they hold rigidly to the United States presidency pay benchmark.
For others, the concern centres on whether the recommendations will short-change Singapore and Singaporeans in the long term. Specifically, will Singapore be able to continue to attract sufficient talented and committed Singaporeans for political service?
They point to how the "new normal" political climate has upped the demands of political office, the quotient for sacrifice. There is nothing wrong with that since politics is not for the faint-hearted especially if one wants to serve at the highest levels.
But cognizance has to be given to the reality that for talented Singaporeans, responding to a call to political service is but one option among many. We need to be mindful not to push this public service logic and sacrifice too far. As much as serving Singaporeans through political office is a calling, it is by no means a priesthood. Often, as in the private sector, you get what you pay for.
Benchmarking and the discount factor will never be free of controversy: Questions and polemics will abound not only on why the benchmarks were chosen but also how they were chosen.
The discount factor "to signify the sacrifice that comes with the ethos of political service", on top of a less generous benchmark, has increased marginally from 33 to 40 per cent. It reiterates the self-sacrificing notion that those at the top need to pay attention to the general good rather than focusing on their private financial affairs.
Is that too much or too little of a discount? Ultimately, any pay formula will need constant and robust review. This means regular reviews as suggested by the committee.
WORST CASE OUTCOMES
There will also be the reality of trade-offs in pursuing one policy option over another.
What is the worst and best outcome for Singapore and Singaporeans if the recommendations are implemented? (Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has indicated that the Government intends to accept the recommendations.)
The worst case scenario would be a double whammy. Political pay remains a contested issue, resulting in the continuing loss of political capital for the Government. As has happened in the past, any discussion of policy flaws could be inflected with the issue of political pay, undermining the ability to examine issues in an objective and rational manner.
And at the same time, political pay is viewed as out of touch with the market value for that sort of ability. If capable and committed Singaporeans shy away from political office because the sacrifice asked is perceived to be excessive and inequitable, Singapore will be poorer for it and the virtuous cycle of good governance will be severely undermined.
BEST CASE SCENARIO
What about the best outcome? First, political pay no longer is an issue that exercises Singaporeans unnecessarily. There is strong consensus among citizens about what compensation is needed for a capable and committed government. In this way, policies are not viewed through the prism of political pay.
Second, the revised benchmarks make political service more attractive to talented and dedicated Singaporeans. Those who were put off by the relatively high pay under the current benchmarks might now re-evaluate their keenness to serve the larger good through political office. The larger the pool of political talent that we have, the better for Singapore.
WHITHER PUBLIC SERVICE ETHOS?
The committee's recommendations, and the debate in Parliament on Jan 16, provide more food for thought. There is a larger imperative behind this effort to right-size political pay that should also be deliberated. How do we encourage and nurture an ethos of public and political service among Singaporeans in a young society like ours, where there is the abiding focus on one's market value?
The ministerial salaries review is primarily concerned with the value of political service - how much to pay? - but the subtext is about the values that undergird our society.
The subject of salaries, for politicians and top civil servants, is inherently contested. But social consensus on what is needed to attract talented men and women to serve the larger good is vital. There has not been such consensus since 1994 when the existing benchmarks were introduced. It is now time to build a strong and sustainable consensus, notwithstanding the limitations of benchmarks.
Eugene K B Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law.
