Top civil servant versus private sector executive - an argument from the standpoint of competitivieness

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.

A critical look at the current electoral system's problem and a possible solution

Abstract

The current system of elections in Singapore has this unique feature - the Group Representation Constituency (GRC), whose purported existence is to allow minority representation. That aside, parliamentary elections have seen large percentages in walkovers , i.e. in more than 40% of the seats especially in the years after the GRC was introduced . In the event of a walkover, the political party facing a no-contest automatically gains seat (s) in the parliament. Walkovers occur due to the fact that the current opposition could not field that many candidates to contest all the seats. This paper critically examines the current electoral system's ruling of a walkover, and suggests a possible solution.

The problem with the current electoral system's ruling of a walkover is based on the flawed assumption that the party with the default victory has the mandate of the people living in the ward. This may not necessarily be the case. It could be possible that majority of the people in the uncontested ward desire another political party to represent them. Thus, from the representative democrat viewpoint, the current system is problematic since the wishes of the majority in the ward may not be reflected in the outcome of the elections.

Thus, the solution is to subject the entire "uncontested ward" to a vote. The residents will vote on whether they want the uncontested party to represent them in parliament. If it turns out that majority of the residents wants the uncontested party to represent them, the uncontested party candidates will naturally win their parliamentary seats. If it turns out that the majority of the residents do not want the uncontested party to represent them, the party is out of the running. A subsequent poll will be designated for a later date. In this subsequent poll, the uncontested party is excluded from contesting, given the fact that the majority of the residents do not desire their representation in an earlier vote. The seats at the constituency will then be contested by the other remaining parties. Candidates of other political parties who were unsuccessful in their wards may also contest in this subsequent poll.

Introduction

The parliamentary General Elections is held once every five years. On polling day, voters will vote for their desired representatives, who upon winning the contest in the ward, will serve as Members of Parliament. In the 1991 General Elections, the People's Action Party was returned to power on nomination day, as a result of 10 walkovers in 15 GRCs, and 1 walkover in a Single Member Constituency (SMC), gaining a total of 41 seats out of 81 seats. During the 1997 General Elections, the number of seats in some of the GRCs was increased to 5 seats in some and 6 seats in the others. The People's Action Party was returned to power on nomination day as a result of walkovers in 9 out of 15 GRCs, gaining a total of 47 out of 83 seats. During the 2001 General Elections, the People's Action Party was returned to power on nomination day as a result of walkovers in 10 out of 14 GRCs, gaining a total of 55 out of 84 seats. During the 2006 General Elections, the People's Action Party was not returned to power on nomination day, but it had walkover victories in 7 out of 14 GRCs, gaining a total of 37 out of 84 seats (Singapore Elections). Thus, an interesting observation is that most of the walkovers take place in the GRCs. In the current electoral system, the uncontested party automatically gains the seats in parliament. The question arises whether the residents of the walkover ward supports the uncontested party. From the democratic viewpoint, the current electoral system fails to address the voices of residents in the walkover ward as victory is given to the uncontested party by default, with the possibility that the uncontested party never had the residents' support (majority support) in the first place.

What then are the suggested changes to the current system of electoral contest to address the voices of the residents in the uncontested ward? A two-phase electoral contest is suggested herein as a possible solution. The first phase is known as the "Gatekeeping" phase, which ensures that the uncontested party has the mandate of the people living in the ward. In this "gatekeeping" phase, people will vote on whether or not they want the uncontested party to represent them. If the uncontested party has the approval of the majority in the ward, the "gate" is opened for its entry into parliament. However, if majority votes against the uncontested party, then it is out of the running of the elections. A subsequent poll is carried out at a later date involving the other political parties to determine the representatives of the ward. If the other political parties have enough candidates, they can take part in this subsequent poll. Candidates of the other political parties who are unsuccessful in their contested wards during the earlier election may participate in this subsequent poll too.

Discussion

The suggested approach has its strengths and weak points. Touching on the weak points, one of its criticisms will be from the standpoint of proportional representation (Proportional Representation Library). For example, if in a particular ward, 30,000 voters support the uncontested party, and they are likely to vote for the uncontested party at the "Gatekeeper" polls. However, 20,000 voters support a second political party, while 20,000 voters support a third political party. Thus, the end result is that the 30,000 "majority" out of this 70,000 do not "have their voices heard". In the winner-takes-all nature of the "First Past The Post" system, the uncontested party rightly deserves victory since it has the 30,000 majority. If you have 40,000 voters voting against the uncontested party, will it even be democratic to suggest that the uncontested party deserves to represent the entire ward (Ace Project)? In any sense, current polls at every single ward under the current system is based on the majority-wins-all First Past the Post system. The same criticism of proportional representation can be leveled at the current First Past the Post system. The nature of the contest in each ward under the current electoral system is that of majority is the winner-takes-all, and is by no means based on proportional representation.

Another weak point is perhaps the longer than usual polling period in the event that the "Gatekeeper" poll has eliminated the uncontested party. A later date for the poll has to be set aside for the residents of the uncontested ward to determine their representatives. The drawback is that the formation of the parliament is being delayed.

Moving on to the strength of this approach, first and foremost, it addresses the question of whether or not the uncontested party has the mandate of the people in the ward. It goes that if majority of the people do not desire its representation as reflected in the polls, it's only right that the "gate" to its entry into parliament is closed.

Another strength of this approach is that it preserves the fundamental values of meritocracy. Suppose in a situation whereby the other parties encounter mishaps, be it administrative mishaps or otherwise, and a group of individuals or a single individual apply to contest in this ward. It follows that this group of individuals or individual for that matter are applying for the sake of contesting per se, and are not interested in representing the interests of the voters. Will it wise to give this group of individuals or individual a walkover victory? The answer is an obvious no. The "gatekeeper" poll will be able to easily eliminate such individuals from the contest. In essence, candidates who merit the voter's support will be rewarded accordingly and those who do not deserve the support will be eliminated.

Yet another strength of this approach is that it will further encourage more pro-active participation from the political parties in improving the lives of the voters. Under the current system, the uncontested party is automatically given default victory. If the uncontested party has to win the approval of the voters at the "Gatekeeper" polls, it will have greater impetus to be more pro-active in winning the hearts and minds of voters. All the more the voters will benefit.

The thrust of this paper is to critically examine the current drawbacks of electoral contests in the event of a walkover. There is not much literature out there addressing the event of a walkover, especially from the standpoint of the voters' desires in a walkover ward. Although, it is not without its drawbacks, the benefits outweighs the drawbacks. Thus, it will be a positive move from a democratic perspective that the relevant authorities do try to take steps to allow voters in "walkover wards" to decide who should represent them, either through wholesale changes or revision in the current electoral system.

Citations

1) Ace Project. Electing a President using FPTP. accessible at http://www.aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/ese/ese01/ese01a/

2) Proportional Representation Library. Mount Holyoke College accessible at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

3) Singapore Elections Results accessible at http://www.singapore-elections.com/

The craving for a refuge

I have just made inroads as I contemplated further on the philosophy of LIFE. It was an unusual event that has "enlightened" me.

A ex-classmate cum project mate of mine was a committed Christian. She was into church activities, helps out in bible studies and plays in a church band. I was more or less aware of her beliefs during the days when we worked together on group projects. I graduated before her, but we still keep in contact, but curiously our topic always veer towards Christianity. It's also a curious position for me, because I consider myself a staunch critic of Christianity. I am a self-confessed avid reader of Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, the former who gave an exhaustive explanation why he isn't a Christian and the latter, known for launching a series of philosophical diatribes on Christianity.

Thus, it's inevitable that in one of the conversations that I launched into a rebuttal of Christianity. Admittedly, I also mentioned things to her like why Christianity is the second most disliked religion here. I also spoke of my cheeky pun at a pastor who conducted services at my grandfather's funeral. I actually asked the pastor,"hey, don't you think the use of sheeps as a description in Christianity is little inappropriate, because sheeps will eventually be fleeced and be sent to a slaughterhouse? Okay, I know I stepped outside the boundaries for once. I also told this classmate of mine that I could not really tolerate Christian groups launching agendas against sexual minorities like gays and lesbians. Don't mistake me for a homosexual, I am a straight, but I feel that everyone deserves a breathing space, a right to employment into the Singapore civil service, irregardless of sexual orientation.

Later on, I thought through my experiences philosophically especially why I seem to observe that some people follow their beliefs in a steadfast fashion. A realization soon struck me. Each and everyone of us craves for a refuge. Some refuges are permanent, whilst others are temporary. A non-performing ex-champion seeks refuge in the memories of his past victories as a source of solace for his current defeats. A practising Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, and like-wise, a Christian seeks refuge in the arms of the Lord. It is inevitable at various times of our lives, we need shelter from the storms we face, and a refuge is a necessity. I for one admittedly seek refuge in my philosophical imagination, a mental getaway from all the strife out there. It's where my mind leaves my body and I float around in some noumenal realm (not in specific reference to Kant's noumenal realm). Thus, it can be said that the craving for a refuge is a primal urge. There is no denying the importance of a refuge, as it not only allows a person to be temporarily free from the storms, it is also a place of recovery for a person, mentally and to a certain, physically (placebo effect).

Perhaps, it is destiny, Christians call it God's will, Muslims refer to it as Allah's will, Buddhists call it Karma, etc, that I met this classmate of mine. And that my meeting and discussions with her gave me important philosophical insights. I am still what I am, just that I learn to appreciate the why my fellow homo sapiens chose to harbor certain beliefs. Religionwise, I am still at the same station as I was, no I am still not a Christian. (Sorry for the anti-climax)