mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2007-04-13 02:56:00 |
|
Can the PAY hike go beyond dollars and cents??
Dr. Balakrishnan has clarified that PM Lee did not make his decision to donate his pay hike under pressure:
"I want to categorically tell everybody that this was not a decision which he made under pressure. This was a conscious, deliberate decision made by Prime Minister using his heart and head to make what I believe was a wonderful gesture." (CNA)
[Wah, you cannot just tell us ah? Must tell us "categorically" some more. Very cheem leh.]
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we could/can only speculate. But does Dr. Balakrishnan's clarification clear all doubt for us?
Dr. Balakrishnan says that PM Lee made the decision "quite some time ago," which is anything but clear. After all the decision to increase the pay of ministers must have been made quite some time ago too and the reaction of people - online, especially - has been going for quite some time too. Thus, even if the decision had been made immediately after the government had reached a decision on the pay hike, the decision could well have been made after people have already expressed their unhappiness about it. Does it mean that it wasn't made under pressure? I don't think so. It is at least partly a political move - the fact that the Cabinet discussed the discssion (as CNA reports) and the fact that the decision is announced makes it political.
It seems to me that Dr. Balakrishnan himself unwittingly testifies to how the decision is a political move when he tells the media that whether he donates his own pay hike or not is a private matter when he says:
So, I suppose the decision isn't so private for PM Lee since he's so transparent and public about his donation.
That said, I am actually inclined to believe that it is quite likely that PM Lee wasn't making the decision under pressure even if it was a politically invested decision. He doesn't have to succumb to pressure. Yet, neither do I believe that the people's unhappiness about the pay hike was in no way a factor that influenced his decision. His heart, head, mind, soul, libido and whatnot might have told him to do so. But why at this point? He could well have afforded to donate a huge chunk of his income to charity even with his pre-hike salary if he had the heart, head, etc to do so.
The irony is that perhaps people really want him to be making the decision because of their unhappiness. No doubt, people would accuse him of trying to do damage control or save face, but at least he would be showing that in Singapore, the people still have a certain influence. However, the government could have taken yet another unwise step by adamantly refusing to concede that the people's reactions played a part. Certain things are perhaps best left ambiguous.
But Molly is not a politician, so perhaps what she considers to be political acumen could simply be silly bimboticism. There is a reason why she's not earning $100k per month.
Other issues that Dr. Balakrishnan raised include his disapproval of the way people have linked the pay hike to public assistance. While Molly has her own reservations about making the link, Molly hopes that Dr. Balakrishnan and his colleagues would reflect on his words. According to him, an old, destitute person who has no family and lives alone could receive about $2000 worth of assistance (including housing, healthcare and transport subsidies) per month and then went on to say something that doesn't quite follow:
There are several points that can be raised here:
1. People link the public assistance scheme to ministers pay because those on the scheme could barely survive on that amount - they might not even have three full meals a day - and the total monetary worth of the assistance this poor person receives does not matter. It remains that s/he does not have enough and that's what people are criticizing.
2. If a poor person with absolutely nothing gets about $2000 worth of assistance and still can barely cope, what about those who have a job that pays way below $2000 but get little or no assistance? Those who draw a $800 salary and get Workfare benefits? Those who draw a $1500+ salary but who do not get Workfare benefits? What happens to these people? Making sure that help reaches the right people, Dr.? But how about making sure that enough help reaches the right people?
3. If people should go beyond just dollars and cents, perhaps the government should set an example first? Why is it that the government talks mainly about salaries when it talks about attracting and retaining talents in the civil and administrative service? There are many factors involved in making a job attractive - not just dollars and cents. (As I suspected and as my readers have commented, people seem to have left the civil service because they are simply too disillusioned with it and some leave it for lower-paying jobs.)
Or is it just the people who should go beyond dollars and cents? We are the ones who should take any job, take any pay, take whatever comes our way?
Finally, Dr. Balakrishnan has this to say:
In short, it's the same old talent argument. (The words "talent" and "special" are over-used and sound too elevated. "Best" sounds better, perhaps?)
Since it's the same old argument, Molly is not going to provide the same old rebuttal. But she would just like to say that maybe what we need is really a Singapore that will not go down even if it doesn't have the best civil service and a government that claims to be the best.
Or maybe that's what we already have ... But if so, no one in the government is going to admit it, as far as I see.
Dr. Balakrishnan has clarified that PM Lee did not make his decision to donate his pay hike under pressure:
"I want to categorically tell everybody that this was not a decision which he made under pressure. This was a conscious, deliberate decision made by Prime Minister using his heart and head to make what I believe was a wonderful gesture." (CNA)
[Wah, you cannot just tell us ah? Must tell us "categorically" some more. Very cheem leh.]
As I mentioned in an earlier post, we could/can only speculate. But does Dr. Balakrishnan's clarification clear all doubt for us?
Dr. Balakrishnan says that PM Lee made the decision "quite some time ago," which is anything but clear. After all the decision to increase the pay of ministers must have been made quite some time ago too and the reaction of people - online, especially - has been going for quite some time too. Thus, even if the decision had been made immediately after the government had reached a decision on the pay hike, the decision could well have been made after people have already expressed their unhappiness about it. Does it mean that it wasn't made under pressure? I don't think so. It is at least partly a political move - the fact that the Cabinet discussed the discssion (as CNA reports) and the fact that the decision is announced makes it political.
It seems to me that Dr. Balakrishnan himself unwittingly testifies to how the decision is a political move when he tells the media that whether he donates his own pay hike or not is a private matter when he says:
"I will follow the Prime Minister's advice in that we do not believe in ostentatious generosity. Generosity should be a private matter, and something which all of us should do out of our own discretion. So I don't think any minister is going to engage in this public ostentatious display of generosity." (CNA)
So, I suppose the decision isn't so private for PM Lee since he's so transparent and public about his donation.
That said, I am actually inclined to believe that it is quite likely that PM Lee wasn't making the decision under pressure even if it was a politically invested decision. He doesn't have to succumb to pressure. Yet, neither do I believe that the people's unhappiness about the pay hike was in no way a factor that influenced his decision. His heart, head, mind, soul, libido and whatnot might have told him to do so. But why at this point? He could well have afforded to donate a huge chunk of his income to charity even with his pre-hike salary if he had the heart, head, etc to do so.
The irony is that perhaps people really want him to be making the decision because of their unhappiness. No doubt, people would accuse him of trying to do damage control or save face, but at least he would be showing that in Singapore, the people still have a certain influence. However, the government could have taken yet another unwise step by adamantly refusing to concede that the people's reactions played a part. Certain things are perhaps best left ambiguous.
But Molly is not a politician, so perhaps what she considers to be political acumen could simply be silly bimboticism. There is a reason why she's not earning $100k per month.
*********************
Other issues that Dr. Balakrishnan raised include his disapproval of the way people have linked the pay hike to public assistance. While Molly has her own reservations about making the link, Molly hopes that Dr. Balakrishnan and his colleagues would reflect on his words. According to him, an old, destitute person who has no family and lives alone could receive about $2000 worth of assistance (including housing, healthcare and transport subsidies) per month and then went on to say something that doesn't quite follow:
"So, if you total up everything, money is not the issue. The issue is outreach, the issue is coming up with innovative scheme, making sure we do the right thing, making sure that help reaches the right people. So, that's what I want to focus on and that's what I want to get people to go beyond just dollars and cents."
There are several points that can be raised here:
1. People link the public assistance scheme to ministers pay because those on the scheme could barely survive on that amount - they might not even have three full meals a day - and the total monetary worth of the assistance this poor person receives does not matter. It remains that s/he does not have enough and that's what people are criticizing.
2. If a poor person with absolutely nothing gets about $2000 worth of assistance and still can barely cope, what about those who have a job that pays way below $2000 but get little or no assistance? Those who draw a $800 salary and get Workfare benefits? Those who draw a $1500+ salary but who do not get Workfare benefits? What happens to these people? Making sure that help reaches the right people, Dr.? But how about making sure that enough help reaches the right people?
3. If people should go beyond just dollars and cents, perhaps the government should set an example first? Why is it that the government talks mainly about salaries when it talks about attracting and retaining talents in the civil and administrative service? There are many factors involved in making a job attractive - not just dollars and cents. (As I suspected and as my readers have commented, people seem to have left the civil service because they are simply too disillusioned with it and some leave it for lower-paying jobs.)
Or is it just the people who should go beyond dollars and cents? We are the ones who should take any job, take any pay, take whatever comes our way?
*********************
Finally, Dr. Balakrishnan has this to say:
"If Singapore were to go down in the future because we're unable to have the best possible civil service and the leadership for that civil service in place, the people who would suffer most, the people who would be bereft of all the social support that they deserve and need, would be the very people who are at greatest risk, at the bottom of the socio- economic ladder."
In short, it's the same old talent argument. (The words "talent" and "special" are over-used and sound too elevated. "Best" sounds better, perhaps?)
Since it's the same old argument, Molly is not going to provide the same old rebuttal. But she would just like to say that maybe what we need is really a Singapore that will not go down even if it doesn't have the best civil service and a government that claims to be the best.
Or maybe that's what we already have ... But if so, no one in the government is going to admit it, as far as I see.
