Earlier on, the Singapore government tabled a motion to peg the salaries of ministers and civil servants to that of the private sector. To peg the salaries against earners in the private sector, there must be some basis to show that a civil servant is indeed comparable to someone who is employed in the private sector.
One of the questions that arises is if there is any basis of comparison in the first place. If there is no basis of comparison, the argument for the need to raise salaries of civil servants and ministers by pegging them to the salaries of executives in the private sector is untenable. This is simply because there is little basis for comparison with their counterparts in the private sector.
In fact, in reality, there is little basis of comparison between someone working in the private sector and a civil servant. In the private sector, the raison d'etre for an employee or executive is simply to generate revenue or profits for the firms they are working for. A top executive in a firm is ultimately answerable to the shareholders, in as far as profits are concerned. Thus, more often than not, the worth of an employee or executive for that matter in the private sector is based on his ability to generate revenue. Therefore, his salary is justified by his ability to generate revenue or level of competitiveness, one way or another. (in the context of this article, competitiveness means the ability to generate profits or revenue in the financial sense).
How about a civil servant or even a top grade civil servant for that matter? His raison d'etre is public administration. Barring exceptions of civil servants occupying certain positions in the Economic Development Board or the Ministry of Trade and Industry, majority of civil servants are not in the position to generate revenue, so to speak. It follows that the working philosophy is not competitive in the sense. This can be illustrated with a simple comparative example. A superscale civil servant working at the headquarters of the Education Ministry makes decisions on the education system in Singapore in a public administrative capacity. However, a top executive in an educational provider company would be tasked with steering the company with the goal of generating more profits in mind. There is a world of difference between the two and the nature and aims of their work. It follows that the argument of using the private sector as a basis to justify the revisions in salary is not tenable.
There is another argument from the basis of lost opportunities, i.e. what talents in the civil service would have gained if they worked in the private sector instead. I am not denying that there are people formerly in the civil service who will eventually do well in the private sector, BUT again, to assert that a top executive within a civil service would go on to be a high flyer in the private sector may not sound convincing. The reason is the argument that I highlight earlier. The civil servant may have been brilliant at public administration, but we do not know if he is brilliant at generating revenue. An extrapolation of such a nature would be problematic.
The main thrust of my argument is that if one wants to peg salaries against a benchmark, there must be some basis of comparison with the benchmark. Thus, it is important to compare a civil servant with a someone working in the private sector. If there is no basis of comparison, then it follows that there is no basis for pegging salaries against that certain benchmark.
In fact, in reality, there is little basis of comparison between someone working in the private sector and a civil servant. In the private sector, the raison d'etre for an employee or executive is simply to generate revenue or profits for the firms they are working for. A top executive in a firm is ultimately answerable to the shareholders, in as far as profits are concerned. Thus, more often than not, the worth of an employee or executive for that matter in the private sector is based on his ability to generate revenue. Therefore, his salary is justified by his ability to generate revenue or level of competitiveness, one way or another. (in the context of this article, competitiveness means the ability to generate profits or revenue in the financial sense).
How about a civil servant or even a top grade civil servant for that matter? His raison d'etre is public administration. Barring exceptions of civil servants occupying certain positions in the Economic Development Board or the Ministry of Trade and Industry, majority of civil servants are not in the position to generate revenue, so to speak. It follows that the working philosophy is not competitive in the sense. This can be illustrated with a simple comparative example. A superscale civil servant working at the headquarters of the Education Ministry makes decisions on the education system in Singapore in a public administrative capacity. However, a top executive in an educational provider company would be tasked with steering the company with the goal of generating more profits in mind. There is a world of difference between the two and the nature and aims of their work. It follows that the argument of using the private sector as a basis to justify the revisions in salary is not tenable.
There is another argument from the basis of lost opportunities, i.e. what talents in the civil service would have gained if they worked in the private sector instead. I am not denying that there are people formerly in the civil service who will eventually do well in the private sector, BUT again, to assert that a top executive within a civil service would go on to be a high flyer in the private sector may not sound convincing. The reason is the argument that I highlight earlier. The civil servant may have been brilliant at public administration, but we do not know if he is brilliant at generating revenue. An extrapolation of such a nature would be problematic.
The main thrust of my argument is that if one wants to peg salaries against a benchmark, there must be some basis of comparison with the benchmark. Thus, it is important to compare a civil servant with a someone working in the private sector. If there is no basis of comparison, then it follows that there is no basis for pegging salaries against that certain benchmark.
No comments:
Post a Comment