Oblong

This time around, there’s no real need to wait for further developments. I’m basing my remarks entirely on the review committee’s findings after all, and not the opinions of the netizens jostling for space on the Internet. I’m already late, but there were other matters for me to attend to. Matters that actually put some cash in my wallet. Of course it’s the money.

To make my own home base clear, I think I should express that I don’t buy into the dollar-for-talent theory. I think of attracting political talent as the responsibility of the party, not the state, so tax money shouldn’t have a role to play. I do however put stock by the notion that high pay deters bribery and corruption. It is easy to say it doesn’t make sense to pay someone to not be corrupt, but I think of it as always being the highest bidder.

Now, two people can dicker for weeks at end over the various conspiracy theories concerning corruption and nepotism. As far as I’m concerned, the lack of correlation between the respective lists of highest-paid politicians and richest politicians settles the case.

On another point, I strongly believe that a person should be paid proportionate to the work he’s doing. The Cabinet ministers clock fourteen-hour days with distressing regularity, and frankly I’d feel a bit guilty if they didn’t get paid well for it, public service and duty or not.

Anyway, despite my opposition to the dollar-for-talent principle, I’ll accept for it here for the sake of a workable commentary. It’ll provide the backdrop and paradigm within which I shall work for now. Another sidepoint: if they had only grasped the opportunity better, the Government could had upped the ante and delivered a knockout punch with this review. But they left too many weaknesses exposed. Good try, but no cigar.

Nobody can honestly say they were expecting cuts as deep as these. Well, the SDP’s pet jackals will say they were expecting more, but then again half of them are deluded, another half are so cynical they were never expecting cuts to begin with and the last half are lying through their teeth. I know that makes three halves, but simple mathematics never seemed to apply to the SDP. That’s the only reason I conceive of for their bald-faced claim of having garnered ‘overwhelming support’ for their own salary review proposal some time ago.

Back to the cuts. Deep? Yes. Exceeding expectations? Yes. Acceptable? Probably. Sensible? Possibly. Sustainable? Unlikely.

Pegging pay to 60% of the median income of the top 1,000 citizens is hopelessly top-heavy. It’ll be stuffed with bankers and lawyers and surgeons and their golf coaches, and more importantly it doesn’t account for how growth at the top of the income scale has been outstripping every other rung on the ladder.

Yes I know, low-income growth is accounted for in the National Bonus. But isn’t it a bit distasteful for the basic salary to be pegged to the top and the add-on bonus to the bottom? How about the other way around? Why not a “this is the low-peg basic salary we are paying that’s nowhere near as good as your old job’s paycheck, but if you do a good job your bonus is going to be heavier than that old paycheck” method? I think that preserves the idea of sacrifice in public service without shorting the high-pay theory? Of course, with the in-principle modification that now instead of dollar-for-talent it’s dollar-for-merit.

Another thing about the low-income peg for the National Bonus. The payoff for the ministers if terribly out of whack. A 100% bonus payout for real income growth of 2-3% at both the median and 20th percentile levels? 200% for 4% growth? Woah. You’re kidding. That’s aiming low and paying high. If any blackjack table offered odds like that it’d be the one time the house doesn’t win. It doesn’t make sense to me, not with the current recommended National Bonus scheme.

By the way, one shouldn’t get too distracted by the theoretical maximum 8-month GDP Bonus Cabinet ministers are eligible for. They’ll get that much only in the case of phenomenal GDP growth, so I wouldn’t worry too much about that. Aside from asking if they’re sticking GDP multipliers in too many places and double- or triple-counting the same statistic. Just sayin’.

 Anyway, a 40% cut from the median of 1,000 will probably mean no cut at all for anyone in the bottom one-third of that group. Roughly, mind. I’m just running the numbers off my head and given how medians can skew I daren’t say I’m sure. But it definitely means no cut for a sizable portion of that lucky 1,000 and possibly even a pay rise for some. It makes monkey out of that ’40% sacrifice’ guideline.

Besides, both the numbers 40% and 1,000 seem rather arbitrary to me. I don’t know how they have been justified. Probably a matter of ‘this feels right.’ Now that can’t be easily questioned since everyone is going to ‘feel’ differently on the matter, but that 1,000 at least can be made a broader measure. Say,26th-75th top earners from each of the top 20 professions? Otherwise, this ’1,000′ formula runs the risk of over- and under-representation. Still, I take the 40% in good faith. It is a big number and at least it shows the desire and willingness to make cuts even if they’re not too wise in deciding how the cuts are made. It’s gone quite a distance in inclining me to go easy on the cynicism.

It would be helpful as well to insert a mechanism whereby MPs can call quick vote to dock a particular minister’s pay on an ad hoc basis whenever something very dis-satisfactory happens within his portfolio. Like another ponding incident.

Well, I’ll talk a little on what I do like. (This shall be a short post, as I’ve got work to attend to.)

Getting rid of the pensions is good. Even better if they had gotten rid of those already on pensions, but I can settle for this. I also like the transparency of the new formula, although it could be improved even more by ordering all ministers to disclose all sources of income. I’m less inclined to compromise on that, but I don’t see it as an urgent concern at the moment.

And that’s all I like. OK, I like seeing the big percentage figures representing the cuts but I’m not very satisfied with the reasoning and methodology that came up with those figures.

So, overall, thumbs up or thumbs down?

Up. All the way. Why? Easy. Because the world is bigger than Singapore, you fool.

Read what Tharman has been saying for the past few days, if you can tear your eyes away from that pointless gossipy did-Pritam-Singh-say-this-or-didn’t-he. A tough two years are expected ahead, and a recession is likely. A convenient acid test. If the new formula doesn’t work, it’ll be painfully obvious to everyone. The PM will want to correct it, and he’ll have left himself with sufficient time to do so before the next GE. That’ll help take the teeth out of the Opposition. The empirical method in its glory.

Of course, if the PM forgets to do so we’ll remind him even if the WP MPs don’t. New normal and all that. Not just the ministers, but netizens gotta bear that in mind too.

Piaroh-Cze:

I wonder if this is it.

Advertisement