Monday, April 09, 2007
i hear the commotion. but i feel that there are substantive reasons why the government is taking this move, and i choose to defend the govt's position:
1) based on a simple economic analysis, it is clear that where a person could earn 2 million dollars in a job, there is no reason why he would want to earn only 1 million in another. this, of course, is a simplified analysis, since a person may choose his career based on several other considerations like job satisfaction and working hours etc. but, ceteris paribus, a person would choose a job with higher pay. this alludes to the simple theory that the best people for the minister's job would choose to work in the private sector (for higher wages) rather than be a public official. thus it is pertinent that wages in the public sector are competitive enough such that top talent could be retained to serve in our government.
2) the contentions put forth against the pay increment are more emotional than substantive.
1st, it is stated that our ministers' pay is already one of the highest in the world. but then there are good reasons why this is so. our govt is recognised as one of the most competent and least corrupt govts in the world. if we want to pay them less, then we would have to settle for corrupted officials like those in our neighbouring countries, or, more frighteningly, settle for people of calibre like bush.
2nd, it is contended that there is a widening income gap and the govt should not, at this point, worsen it by increasing the ministers' already high wages. this argument is again flawed. increasing ministers' pay would probably have minimal impact on the widening income gap. the income gap is due to capitalism, and is a problem every capitalist country faces. what is important, is that people at the wrong end of the income spectrum are still able to lead a reasonably comfortable life. cheap housing, education, necessities and medicine are what many people in other countries do not enjoy; and what the govt has to ensure is that all singaporeans can enjoy a reasonably comfortable life. if a widening income gap nevertheless ensures that all singaporeans are able to enjoy a certain standard of life, then it is arguable that the widening income gap isnt such an evil after all.
3rd, it is stated that somehow the increment does not reflect the government's performance. but i see this from a different angle: the higher wages offered are a means to an end - the end being the formation of a clean and competent govt. after this govt is formed, its performance hinges on a myriad of factors, like world economy, which are unforeseeable and uncontrollable. the focus has to be the formation of the good govt, and not on its subsequent performance.
3) i do not disagree that being a public official means that one has to serve the public interest. but it does not follow that to serve the public interest one would have to sacrifice his own. the society has to be more pragmatic than that. if they want to retain top talent to govern our country, they cannot just bank on the fact that these top talent are gonna be altruistic in nature and would sacrifice higher pay to serve the nation. this is just naive. if the public sector is to compete for top talent, there has to be another (monetary) carrot hanging, other than telling one that he would be doing the nation a service, and that it is a honorable job.
*this figure is quoted on the front page of the straits times. 60% is the figure i got off a report on the internet.