Hammer Online

Ministerial & Civil Service Pay

By Low Thia Khiang

The issue on Ministerial and Civil Service Pay has struck a cord with Singaporeans. The follow is an extract of the parliamentary speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang on this issue

When the topic on market benchmarking of ministerial and civil service salaries against the top private sector earners was first debated in Parliament in 1994, I spoke against it.

Thirteen years later, the debate continues over whether ministers are being paid too much. The issues I had raised remain relevant to date. The people, like me, were not and are still not convinced that the salary benchmark is fair and just!

Given the public disquiet and debate outside this house after the intended salary revision was announced, the government should seriously consider setting up a panel for public consultation and coming up with a remuneration formula for the public service that can be adhered to, is practical, and is deemed reasonable by the public.

Concerns About Benchmarking Against Private Sector

One concern is that it is volatile – this is inevitable when the variable component of private sector wages such as bonuses and stock option gains are taken into account in the setting of annual wages. In addition, the benchmark not only considers the earnings of Singaporeans, but also those of Malaysians and Permanent Residents.

While most of the individuals in the benchmark change every year, the level of wages taken into consideration will most likely increase over the years. This is largely due to two factors. Firstly, a larger income gap due to globalisation will result in more highfliers earning very high incomes. Secondly, the embracing of foreign talents in Singapore will result in a greater pool of high wage earners who will qualify under the benchmark criteria, alongside potentially increased wages. In a worse scenario, such a benchmark may even encourage money-minded civil servants to focus on policies that ensure the existence of a pool of top earners that satisfy the benchmark criteria.

Remuneration in the private sector is volatile and employees are subject to stringent performance reviews. For instance, stock option gains are possible only when the individual make a correct investment decision. More often than not, such individuals have also helped to improve the value of the company. However, human beings do not always make the right decisions throughout their entire life. By benchmarking civil servants’ annual pay against individuals who have performed well during that year, there is an implicit assumption that civil servants and Ministers never make incorrect decisions - but are they truly super human beings forever error-free?

In addition, is there any job in the private sector that can guarantee that an employee will always be amongst the highest paid in that sector regardless of performance? There is much less job security in the private sector, and even top performers face continual and fierce competition.

Civil servants have an advantage as they are shielded from the competition posed by foreign talent. Ministers, too, are guaranteed at least 5 years of job security from one election to the next. Moreover, for the ruling party, there is also the flexibility of changing election rules in their favour to significantly increase job security for their Ministers. After all, didn’t SM Goh and MM Lee previously admit that the GRC enables them to bring in Ministerial material?

It is also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers’ money and resources discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and Ministers, while we haggle over additional tens of dollars for our needy and disadvantaged citizens.

Our Proposal

According to a 2005 report by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, the Singapore civil service has some of the highest paid civil servants in the world. Our government holds the view that this will ensure a clean, competent and effective civil service. However, the facts show that other countries with lower paid civil servants are also able to enjoy such qualities.

Based on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and Global Competitiveness Index (GPI), Singapore ranks below Finland and Denmark for 2005 and 2006. However, the governing of a country should not only take into account these 2 factors, i.e. the level of corruption and global competitiveness. A more important factor that directly affects the lives of every Singaporean living here is the quality of life. A survey that evaluates 39 criteria to gauge the quality of life, including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services, found in 2006 that Swiss cities have topped the annual survey again, while Singapore, with its highly paid and thus highly competent and clean government, ranked best only among Asian cities but was 34th in the world. (The Straits Times, 2 April 2007).

Based on the above facts, it would be interesting to note how much the civil servants are paid in such countries. According to a United Nations report, the Switzerland Federal Office of Personnel revealed that the basic remuneration of civil servants range from 55,000 Swiss Franc to 321,000 Swiss Franc in 2006, which based on an exchange rate of 1.25, is about S$69,000 to S$402,000. Good performers receive merit increments of up to 6%, while worst-performing staff may get a decrease in salary. Although bonuses can reach 12% of salary for outstanding performance, and residence and overtime allowances are paid, it still seems that the highest paid Swiss civil servants receive a lower salary than what Singapore civil servants and Ministers receive. (Note: they have neither a prime minister nor a president.)

The Workers' Party is of the view that the government should consider modifying the current benchmarks and take into account international practices. In particular, countries such as Switzerland, Denmark and Finland could be taken into consideration.

Denmark, like Singapore, employs a pay adjustment scheme to ensure that the pay of state employees in general and over a long period of time develops in parallel with the wages and salaries in the private sector. For the Danish, their pay adjustment scheme automatically adjusts the central government pay development to the private sector pay development, but subject to a certain time lag.

Hong Kong also tried to maintain their civil service pay level with the private sector, but they only maintain the “broad comparability” and not any explicit link. Unlike Singapore, they all do not have a sure-win formula that ensures civil servants always have the best deal by benchmarking specifically to the top few earners.

Basic salaries may be benchmarked broadly with the private sector in line with international best practice but we believe that performance pay should also be introduced to establish a visible correlation between performance and salary. Currently, the civil service has no financial bottom line in ensuring good outcomes, although part of the senior officers’ salaries is linked to GDP growth.

Whilst it is necessary to link a percentage of salaries to performance, it is also imperative to provide a performance regime whereby it is possible to discriminate performers from non-performers or under-performers, and to reward them accordingly. In this respect, I welcome the adjustments in civil service pay structure just announced by the minister. But a performance-related pay system requires a comprehensive and objective system of measurement. In particular, performance appraisals have to be more vigorous and transparent to the public. Variable bonuses should only be given to involved civil servants and ministers if the key performance indicators (KPIs) of the respective ministries have been met.

We recommend having different KPIs for different ministries from time to time so that Ministers and civil servants can concentrate their efforts in deriving the right policies for Singapore in their respective areas. For instance, some possible KPIs that the government can consider adopting at this point in time are :-

• a 5% drop in the Gini coefficient reflecting efforts to reduce the income disparity by the PM
• a 2% increase in the proportion of trips taken on public transport during the peak hours reflecting efforts to make public transport a choice mode by the MOT
• a 5% increase in the total fertility rate reflecting efforts to address the ageing population by Ministers and civil servants involved in the Committee on Aging Population, and perhaps
• a minimum long term unemployment rate reflecting efforts to address structural unemployment by MOM.

By linking variable bonuses to clear and objective KPIs, the government can concentrate on making the right policies for Singapore rather than spending valuable resources and time tracking how much the private sector’s top earners have made each year and how the government should therefore be paid. In addition, this system will ensure that public officers are both accountable and responsible for the outcome of their formulated policies, and keep the government transparent to the public in terms of its achievements, capability and accountability.

Recruiting & Retaining Talent

MM Lee said that it is not possible to hire a foreign talent to run this country because political leaders must have the passion, the commitment and must share the dreams of the people. (The Straits Times, 4 November 2006).

Likewise, such qualities are essential in each and every one of our civil servants. In fact, I believe that civil servants with such qualities will never be induced by the attractions of a private career and a private life no matter how great the financial rewards offered by the private sector.

Although statistics show that officers aged between 28 and 33 made up more than 80% of resignations in the past 5 years, it is not unexpected that officers will review their options when their scholarship bonds end; the alarmingly high percentage speaks of a bigger problem – that scholarships funded out of taxpayers monies did not attract the right mix of people. In fact, some who left say they were drawn by the different challenges and new experiences, more so than by the money.

In view of the above, I think more effort should be made to explore other recruitment and screening methods to attract and retain people with the right fit.

We agree that public servants should not be expected to make unreasonable financial sacrifices to be in the public sector. However, neither should they be seen being paid unreasonable wages for their contributions. According to the Department of Statistics, the bottom and top ten decile of employed households registered an average monthly income of $300 and $6,990 respectively in 2006. Given such statistics, the argument that civil servants make unreasonable financial sacrifices is not convincing.

There is simply no point in offering high remuneration just to entice people to serve if what they are interested in is to make more and more money for himself and his family in pursuit of material interests in life.

I believe the real issue is how to find the right leaders to run Singapore and to ensure that Singapore continues to succeed. Benchmarking the civil service and Ministerial salaries to the crème de la crème of private sector income earners who may or may not be at the same top all the time, is controversial and distracting.

I would like to end this speech by quoting what Chua Lee Hoong said in a Straits Times article (The Straits Times, 31 March 2007): "How much they are paid is secondary. Pay them well, but don’t let pay drive the search for leaders."

论部长与公务员薪金

后港区国会议员暨工人党秘书长刘程强在国会辩论调高部长与公务员薪金的演讲内容

刘程强

1994年国会首次就比照私营企业最高收入者的收入来建立部长及公务员薪金的市场基准这一议题进行辩论时，我表示反对。

在国会批准通过薪金基准13年后的今天，针对部长们的薪金是否过高的争论持续不断。我过去所提出的那些问题至今依然是争论点。人们像我一样，以前不，就是到现在也无法相信这种薪金基准是公平、公正的！如果政府在国会提出这个议题来辩论的唯一目的是要安怃人心，让大家感到政府在批准高薪制度之前已经经过了周详的考虑，那么，我认为这是在浪费公共资源，每隔几年就进行一轮薪金问题的讨论。

尽管政府可以声称在去年大选时已赢得了选民们的委托，因此有权力以自身认为最合适的条件来支付自己的薪金，但我还是要在此提醒政府，我不认为新加坡人民发给了政府一张空白的支票。

从政府宣布有意调高薪金后，引发了许多公众的不安以及各界热烈理论来看，政府应该认真考虑成立一个公众咨询小组,以制定出一个切实可行并且公众认为合情合理的计算公共服务薪金的准则。

以参照私营企业来制定薪金基准的忧虑

目前，将包括部长在内的行政服务部门的公务员薪金与私企顶层收入者的收入作比较来提高薪金的做法，许多人都对这一理念表示不服。

令人关注的其中一个问题是这些私企顶层收入者的收入稳定性。私企顶层收入者的收入包括花红和股票期权，在设定公务员薪金与私营企业薪金挂勾的基准时把这一类在私企收益中的可大幅度变动的部分考虑在内，这种不稳定性便在所难免。此外，该基准的计算不仅考虑新加坡人的收入，还包括了马来西亚人以及永久居民。

虽然在基准点上私企顶层收入者的个人每年都会有变动，因为不一定每一年同一个人的收入都属于顶层收入者，但是纳入考虑范围内的薪金水平却极有可能逐年提高。这主要是有两个因素。第一，全球化导致了经济收入的差距加大，有极少数的人的收入会异常的高，超出一般收入者的范围。第二，新加坡对国外人才的引进导致更多的具有领“超薪”潜力的异常高薪者都符合基准的计算条件。因此，即便是政府在基准的计算范围内采用平均值，其计算出来的结果也未必就能代表新加坡人收入的整体趋势。在更糟糕的情况下，这样的基准或许会激励金钱挂帅的公务员把注意力放在照顾和确保那些符合这一基准计算范围内的高收入者得以在政策上获得最大的发展空间。

因此，在水涨船高的情况下，不断往上飚升的公务员薪金基准点将是政府未来的难堪，而高级公务员持续成为全国受雇者当中最高收入的职业也显得荒谬。在私营企业中，薪酬的波动性大，雇员还得受到严格的业绩评审的制约。举例来说，一个雇员只有在做出正确的投资决策时才会获得股票期权收益，个别雇员往往也必须协助提高公司的价值。然而，没有一个人能够在一生中都做出正确的决策；通过比照那些单单在某一年中表现优秀的个人来制定公务员的年薪基准，其隐含的假设是公务员和部长们从未做出错误决定。但是，他们真的都是永不犯错的超人吗？

再者，请问在私人企业中又有哪份工作能确保一名员工不管工作绩效如何，却能始终是最高收入者呢？其实，私人企业的工作缺乏保障，即使顶尖的人才也面临不间断地、激烈地竞争。

反之，公务员的有利条件是他们不必面对外来人才的竞争。部长们一中选，也可以有至少五年的工作保障，直到下届选举。况且,对执政党而言，他们还可以改变竞选规则，通过对他们有利的选举条规，增加其部长们的工作保障。国务资政吴作栋以及内阁资政李光耀之前不是已经承认了集选区制度能够使他们得以引进部长人才的吗？

令人感到讽刺的是，我们消耗纳税人的钱和资源来讨论应该拿出多少百万元来支付公务员和部长们的薪水，但同时却为了是否应该付多几十块钱资助处境艰难的小市民们讨价还价。

我们的建议

联合国经济和社会事务部2005年的一项报告显示：新加坡公务员的薪金是全世界公务员中薪金最高的。我们的政府认为这将能确保有一个廉洁、能干而有高效的公务员队伍。事实是，其他一些公务员收入较低的国家，他们也具备同样的素质。

就廉洁指数(Corruption Perception Index)和全球竞争力指数(Global competitiveness Index) 而言，新加坡在2005年和2006年都排名在芬兰和丹麦之下。当然,治理一个国家不能仅仅重视衡量腐败的程度和全球竞争力这两项指标。直接影响人民生活的更重要因素是生活的质量。2006年有一项针对39个评测标准的调查，包括了政治、社会、经济及环境因素、个人安全和健康、教育、交通以及其他的公共服务项目。在这项调查中，瑞士的城市再次高居榜首，而坐拥高薪并因而就应具有很强的能力、有廉洁的政府的新加坡却只是在亚洲国家中排第一，而在全世界排名中排列第34位。(《海峡时报》,2007年4月2日的报导)

基于以上的事实,我们应该有兴趣关注这些排名在新加坡前头的国家中，比如丹麦、芬兰和瑞士等等，其公务员的薪金是多少。根据联合国的报告显示,瑞士联邦政府人事厅透露,公务员的基本薪金从5万5千瑞士法郎到32万1千瑞士法郎不等,按照兑换率1.25来计算，大概是新币6万9千到40万2千元。表现好的公务员可获得高达6%的优异加薪,而工作表现差的职员则可被减薪。虽然瑞士公务员工作表现特优时可获得等于薪金12%的花红，并有住所和加班的津贴，但与新加坡的公务员和部长们的薪金相比，似乎瑞士公务员最高的薪金也难以望其项背。另举一例, 2006年联合国的报告列出芬兰公务员的最低月薪是1200欧元,而全国所有雇员的月薪平均值则是2600欧元。即使把购买力等比数列考虑在内,我国公务员的待遇也应该比他们好得多。因此，基于这些证据，我们认为没有必要用巨额薪金来吸引和留住那些能以高成效和廉洁的方式推动国家发展的合适的人才。

工人党认为,政府应该考虑修改现行的公务员与私营企业挂钩的薪金基准，并以另一个更为公平和可长期支撑的薪金基准来取代它。我们建议这个薪金基准应该考虑国际一般惯例，特别考虑参照诸如瑞士、丹麦以及芬兰这类国家的薪金基准。

丹麦也像新加坡一样采用薪酬调整方案，以确保公务员的薪金能够随着时间的进展相应地与私营企业员工的薪金一样增长。他们的薪金调整方案自动调整中央政府公务员的薪金，以此来契合私营企业中薪金的涨幅，但调整的时间比起私营企业会有所延迟。

香港也试图使公务员薪金能维持在私营企业的薪金水平。不过，他们只是保持宽松的比较，也没有任何明确与直接的职能联系。与新加坡不同的是，他们都没有制定一套包赢的方程式来确保公务员永远能通过所制定的薪金基准获得与极少数高收入者一样的高薪。

虽然我们同意基本工资可以按照国际最佳惯例以私营企业为参照来制定基准，但我们也认为应该采用表现薪金制，确立表现与薪金的关系。目前，虽然部分高层官员的薪酬与国内生产总值的增长挂钩，但公务员并没有如私企一样把薪金和营业的亏盈底线挂钩。

虽然采用表现薪金制，确立表现与薪金的关系是必要的，提供一个可以将表现优异者与工作不力者或无所表现者区分开来的制度也不可或缺。在这个方面, 我对部长刚刚公布的有关对公务员薪酬结构的调整表示欢迎。不过，一个与表现挂钩的薪金支付体系需要有一个全面而客观的评估制度。尤其重要的是，这个评估表现的标准必须公开，严格和对公众来说是透明的，是公众能明白和认同的。只有当公务员和部长们达到了各自部门的关键绩效指数(Key Performance Indicator) 时，他们才可获得不固定数额的花红。

我们建议不同的部门应该因时而异地制定不同的关键绩效指数，这样部长和公务员们就有明确的目标，并可全力以赴地在各自的领域内制定出有利于新加坡的正确决策。比如,以目前的情况来看，政府可以考虑所应设定的目标，采取以下的关键绩效指数:

• 以下降5%的基尼系数来反映总理在缩小高低收入差距时所付出的努力。
• 以在繁忙时间内增长2%的公共交通搭客量来反映交通部在使国人把公共交通当为首选的交通模式的努力以及所取得的成绩。
• 以达到5%的人口增长率来评定在人口老化委员会中的部长和公务员们在人口老龄化的问题上所做出的努力。
• 以及设定长期失业率的最低百分比来反映人力部在解决结构性失业问题中取得的成果。

通过将不固定花红与目标明确、能客观评估的关键绩效指数挂钩，政府可以专心为新加坡制定正确的政策，而不必浪费宝贵的资源和时间去追踪私营企业每年的顶层收入者以及政府应该支付多少薪酬给部长和公务员。这种明确的短期目标也可以追索每一个实施成功的政策,并且确保长期的政策目标能够得以逐步地实现。这一套系统也可确保公职人员对其所制定的公共政策的后果负责,并保持政府对公众关于其成就、能力和问责制的透明度。

招聘及保留人才

接下来让我谈谈公务员的招聘和保留人才的问题。

内阁资政李光耀曾说过，聘请外国人才来领导新加坡是不可能的，因为作为政治领袖，必须热爱国民，有承担的决心，必须能与人民一起追逐共同的梦想。(《海峡时报》,2006年11月4日).

同样的，我们的公务员是否拥有这样的素质也是极为重要的。并不是每一个人都可以成为好公务员，失去缺乏这种好素质的人成为公务员，对国家来说也并没有什么损失。事实上, 我相信不管私企提供的经济报酬是多么的优厚，那些拥有这些好素质的公务员也不会禁不住私企优厚薪酬和个人私生活的诱惑。更何况，众所周知的，新加坡的高级公务员和部长们的薪金一点也不低。

虽然统计数字显示在过去的5年中，年龄介于28岁至33岁之间的公务员在递交辞呈的人中的比例高达80%以上，而我相信这其中有不少是政府奖学金得主。当政府奖学金得主的公务员与政府所签的奖学金契约期满了，他们重新做出工作选择的行为并不令人感到意外。其实，政府部门流失公务员人才的惊人高比例说明了一个更严重的问题，哪就是以纳税人的钱所支出的奖学金并未能吸引住合适的人选为国服务。据一位以前当过公务员的人所说，行政服务并不是最适合他的工作(《海峡时报》，2007年3月31日)。事实上,一些离开公务员岗位的人说他们辞职的原因更多时候是被不同的挑战和新的经验所吸引，并非钱的因素。政府越早面对这个事实，对新加坡人民来说就越好。

如果要奖学金得主成为公务员的初衷没能实现，而政府继续寄望于通过这种方法挽回公务员人才流失的趋势，那么可以说政府为了错误的理由和目的在不断地浪费宝贵的资源。综上所述，我认为探寻其他补充人才方法，采用有吸引力的筛选方式，用合理的薪金留住人才，才是更为有效的途径。

我们赞同公共服务人员不应该由于在公共部门工作而在经济上做出过度的牺牲。然而，他们同样也不应该获得与贡献不相称的薪金。根据统计局的数据，2006年，最低和最高10%的受薪阶级家庭，平均每月收入分别为300元和6990元。从这一组统计数字来看，有关公务员在经济上做出了过度牺牲的说法就不那么令人信服了。

即使是私人企业，由于资源有限，也不会有任何一家公司能承受得了为继续挽留和吸引尖端人才而不断增加高薪。至于公共服务部门，我们需要另一类的人献身工作。仅仅为吸引那些只对赚更多的钱和为个人和家庭增添物质享受感兴趣的人而提供高薪是没有意义的。我们不应该忘记即使你给的不是花生米而是更大件的食物，比如香蕉，你依然可能吸引到“猴子”。

总的来说，我认为真正的问题是如何寻觅适当的领导者来领导新加坡，并确保新加坡继续走向成功之路。参照那些不一定能一直拥有顶层收入的私营企业的高收入者来为公务员和部长们制定薪金基准，这种做法会引起争议，也导致人心涣散。最后，让我引用蔡丽芬在海峡时报3月31日一篇文章中的一句话作为结语:“支付多少薪金是次要的。给予他们高薪，但莫让高薪悬赏寻求领导人。”