Teo Chee Hean
Singapore
“The second point first, Mr Speaker. Certainly, it could have been a factor. But to the Panel which reviewed the thing, it was not an acceptable excuse or reason. The agencies still have to be responsible for what they are doing, whatever season of the year it is.”
“On the balance in ACRA, I would not say it is a conflict, but you have to strike the right balance between the functions that ACRA is meant to provide, which is to have a registry which promotes corporate transparency, and you have to balance that against how you protect personal data.”
“That means, if you do find a bug or you do find a way in which you can penetrate a Government system, you let us know, and there is a bounty for it. And this is evergreen. But we also do, from time to time, have a hunting season. So, for certain of our systems, we invite white hatters to attack those systems.”
“Then, he asked when the political office holders got involved in the public communications on the Bizfile portal issue. They got involved, I think, almost as soon as it became apparent that there was public anxiety. Next question about paragraph 40 and the email to senior officers, yes, the July 2024 CM was emailed to officers.”
“In fact, we monitor the dark web for a variety of things, including this, and we have not seen any sale of NRIC numbers as such. On the question of collection and use of NRIC numbers, actually, in the communication with the Government agencies, I think it is important to know who you are communicating with.”
“So, you actually make your email address available to others. But for authentication purposes, it is quite different. You do not tell your password to others. That is something which you keep for yourself and your email service provider knows. So, there is a difference between an identifier and an authentication.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,689 lines we hold for Teo Chee Hean, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 30 of 34.
“I completely agree with Members who say that if we are going to pay competitive market salaries, then we should adopt market policies in our performance management and HR policies in the civil service. And certainly, that is the way we are going to go, and that is the way we have been moving for the last 10-12 years. Those of you who were in the House when Mdm Halimah spoke, I think she gave an excellent speech which described the HR practices that we have in the public service today, which are very different from the HR practices 10-12 years ago, and it was a very good speech, as Mdm Halimah usually gives, from the perspective of the workers who now face these new pressures in the civil service which they did not face before - performance bonuses, annual assessments, risks of having their whole function best sourced if they are inefficient, being invited in for polite conversations to tell them that they might find it more advantageous for themselves to continue another career in another line in the private sector, and not in the Government sector. The fact is that many of our officers now are employed initially on contracts and they have to prove themselves before they are put on permanent service. These are now features of the public service in Singapore. On developing KPIs for public servants, we have been spending a lot of time talking about the Administrative Officers. But actually, there is a wider public service out there, as Mdm Halimah pointed out, there are over 60,000 public servants and also statutory board employees who serve in the wider public service. As Mr Teo Ser Luck pointed out, you can actually select KPIs for different groups of people, depending on what kind of performance you want from them.”
“You still need to explain how, why and whether it makes sense or not. And the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have to decide whether to accept this recommendation or not. Indeed, in other countries, there are independent panels but, unfortunately, the legislature or the government does not have the will and determination to implement the recommendations of the independent panel because of the political pressures and the inability on their part to do so. And what if the benchmark level determined by the independent panel is too low? The Prime Minister and the Cabinet still have to take the responsibility for running the Government, making sure that the civil service has got enough people, and so on. And it still has to decide whether to accept that, even in the face of a civil service which is losing people. So, in the end, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister have to take responsibility and then go to the electorate at the elections and ask the electorate to decide whether the job that they have done has been good enough. Let me talk about the difference between the public and private sectors. Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Michael Palmer, Mr Teo Ser Luck, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, Dr Loo Choon Yong, Ms Denise Phua have spoken a lot about the difference between the private sector and the public sector, particularly where it applies to risks. I think I explained earlier that the benchmark does not contain entrepreneurs and people who own companies. So, basically, it is people who earn incomes and particularly the 15P32 benchmark contains the 32-year-olds who are working for others. In that sense, it is not that different from a good Administrative Officer working in the public service.”
“And these are the relevant market comparisons, not what politicians in Germany, France, Finland, or Denmark are being paid. It is not relevant. Many Members have suggested that we set up an independent panel to review and set salaries - take it out of the hands of this Parliament, take it out of the hands of the Prime Minister. We do not have to deal with this issue which makes us all feel very uncomfortable. In 1994, we had a panel, chaired by Mr Michael Fam, who was then the Executive Chairman of Fraser and Neave, and it comprised other private sector leaders. Its terms of reference were to verify that the IRAS data and calculations in the White Paper were correct, and to comment on the appropriateness of the Prime Minister's salary, taking into account the job scope and responsibilities of PM. The panel was satisfied with the data and the calculations used and we have since computed the benchmarks annually on the same basis. And incidentally, the annual IRAS data that we use for the benchmark computation is audited by the Auditor-General. But we now have more than a panel. In fact, we have a full discussion and debate in the House, as Mr Inderjit Singh reminded us because he has kept the cuttings from 1994. We have done this in 1994 and in 2000. We have full transparency. But, ultimately, even if you had an independent commission and it recommended a salary, somebody has to decide whether to accept that recommendation and implement it, and you cannot escape from the responsibility of making that decision. What happens if the number is too high? Do you just go along and say, "Should be all right. Nobody should get upset because this was an independent panel that set it." I do not think you will escape the same difficulties as we are having today.”
“When Singapore is usually so obsessed with ranking and benchmarking on an international comparison basis - competitiveness, PERC, quality of government and public service, corruption index, and so forth - why do we not do so for Ministers and office holders as well? On the surface of it, it sounds like a very compelling argument. But you ask yourself, why are you doing these comparisons in the first place and are these comparisons valid? First of all, as I explained earlier, our salaries are clean. Everything is there. So when you look at the salary of the Prime Minister of Britain, or Australia, or almost any other country in the world, you do not know what is the total compensation package. You are really not comparing apples with apples. We cannot find out exactly what it is that they are earning because it is not completely transparent. That is one problem. But the second and more fundamental issue is this. Is that a relevant comparison? When you do a competitiveness ranking with other countries, it is a relevant comparison. Why? Because you are trying to attract investors to come to invest in Singapore, to create jobs for Singaporeans. So we want to see how competitive Singapore is against another country which is your competitor. When you are looking at salaries for civil servants and office holders, you must look at what are the realistic alternatives that civil servants and office holders might pursue. They cannot become office holders in Finland, Denmark, or the United States. It is not a relevant market comparison for them, or vice versa. You have to look at what a young man or a person in his 30s or 40s is comparing himself to - a young man or woman when he is deciding what he is going to do with his life.”
“I should say that MPs elected after 1995 are no longer eligible for pension and all the salary revisions since 1995 have been non-pensionable in the civil service. So pension benefits have been frozen at the 1994 level for each grade. Our aim in designing the salary package for our officers is to do so as transparently as possible, taking into account all remuneration components, in order to make as good a comparison as possible with the private sector. Therefore, in principle, we ought really to take into account retirement benefits, such as pension, but we also have to take into account if we do that, whatever benefits of similar type, including full CPF, any kind of gratuity, termination benefits, and so forth, that may exist in the private sector. This itself is quite a complicated exercise. And in any case, if these benefits exist in the private sector, they are not reflected in the annual reports of income to the IRAS as well. So they do not enter into those benchmarks that are in the private sector either. But in practice, the salaries at MR4 have been lagging so significantly that retirement benefits, whether pensions or CPF, have not been a significant factor in previous salary adjustments. As steps are taken to close the gap with the benchmark, we will see whether it makes sense to take the superannuation benefits, both in the private sector and the public sector, into account. I think it will be quite a complicated exercise but we will have a look and see whether it can be done and how it can be done. Let me deal now with this subject of benchmarking salaries of public officials to those public officials in other countries.”
“[Copies of handout* distributed to hon. Members. ] *Cols. 359-360. You will see that it is all there, and that the fixed components have decreased from 66% of pay to 53% of pay and the variable components have increased from 34% of pay to 47% of pay. If Members will allow me, I will take a little time to address the issue of pension. The majority of civil servants are now on the full CPF scheme. Only the Administrative Service and Intelligence Service are on pension. We have also earlier decided that the Senior Police Service and the SAF officers should also be on pension. The reason is that these particular Services require long-term development of the officers, deep experience in order for them to develop the expertise that is necessary in the area, and also to deal with issues generally of high sensitivity to our country. Therefore, we felt that the pension component was useful and that we should have some long-term employment scheme for these officers. The Police and the SAF are not on pension anymore, but they have changed to, what the Police call, an Invest Scheme and the SAF to a SAVER Scheme which is also a long-term employment scheme which encourages and rewards officers if they stay and serve loyally for a number of years. So the principle is something which we do want to maintain for these key Services. Given their role and impact, the Political Office holders also are eligible for pension provided they serve at least eight years as an office holder. We believe that it is important to encourage people to serve longer periods of time so that they develop the instincts and understanding of how our Government works so that they can serve Singaporeans better.”
“So, in the end, we will still have to have some kind of benchmarking in order to have a basis for deciding what is a reasonable salary package. Job sizing and scoping to determine pay levels. In the Public Service, we do evaluate and grade our jobs regularly to ensure that they reflect our expectations of the job and job grades are used for deployment purposes to stretch our officers and certainly in awarding performance bonuses, we also take into consideration the size of the job relative to the officer's actual job grade. So we do that but I think that if you ask a person to come in - a HR consultancy - and say that we come in and evaluate the size of a Minister's job and you try and do that, I think it will be quite a complicated exercise and to make that comparison, again, there will be considerable controversy about that whole exercise itself. There were also questions raised, both in public and in this House, about what components go into the salary and what components do not go into the salary, that there is this very large figure that they have presented before them and there might well be other hidden extras which we are not aware of. So perhaps I should ask for these other two tables to be handed out. [Copies of tables distributed to hon. Members. ] We pay a clean wage. There is no free housing, no paid holidays, no free COEs, or exemptions for foreign maid levy nor for ERP and there is no free medical care. Some of you would already have seen this handout and it lists out some of the common misperceptions about pay for Ministers and what the reality is. I have also asked for a handout to be circulated that lists out all the salary components using the MR4 grade as an example, and this contains all the fixed components and variable components.”
“We can fine-tune the job categories - add in a few, put up, lose some, but I do not think the outcome will be very different. On Mr Alvin Yeo's suggestion to adopt a 3-5 year moving average, to some extent, we are doing this already, except that the average is very sticky - going up and very quick to come down when we move, because we move down very sharply during a recession. I think it is very difficult for any government to say, "Well, the moving average tells me that I should stay there or go up when, in fact, we are in the middle of a recession." So it comes down very quickly but it is quite sticky going up and, to some extent, I am taking a measured approach when we make these adjustments. We are taking a longer term view of how salaries are moving already. Mr Inderjit Singh suggested that the PM should just decide and the problem is that we are having this debate because we have this benchmark but if the PM were to just simply decide and come up with a figure, he would still need to justify to the public how he came to this number, and he would have to find some means of comparison and benchmarking in order to have this number.”
“Specifically for lawyers and accountants, about two-thirds of the individuals remained unchanged (from one year to the next in this group). Engineers stay the shortest in the list. I am sure Ms Lee Bee Wah will have something to say about that. No doubt they stay short in the list because when they get on this list, they grow up very quickly and become something else. They are likely to become CEOs or take on senior management jobs in companies. Some Members have pointed out that if the persons change every year, then we are only selecting the top persons every year and it may be different persons on the list. So that is not fair. On the other hand, I can also see problems if the same persons remain on the list every year. Then you can say that only these people are doing well and how about the rest of them who are not doing well all the time. So when you look at it, a 40% ‘dwell’ rate, it seems to me to be not unreasonable but the more important thing is, what are we benchmarking against. We are not benchmarking against specific individuals. What we are benchmarking against is the typical salaries that persons holding these types of jobs and responsibilities do earn. We have selected these six job categories because they are realistic alternatives for persons who are considering a career in the public service, whether they are at a young age on graduation or whether they are considering coming into public elected office in their 30s and 40s because many of them are from these professions. We have not included architects or doctors, because they require specific talents or skills, and we have not included entrepreneurs. So entrepreneurs are not on the list. Those who have made the point about entrepreneurs and risks, entrepreneurs are not there.”
“Some have suggested pegging the pay to levels of government officials in other countries, taking a moving 3-5 year average, job sizing and scoping, including new categories of jobs, defining a new benchmark based on companies by market capitalisation. Mr Inderjit Singh has also suggested there is really no need for a benchmark. The Prime Minister should just decide and that would solve the problem. Sir, in 2000, the formula for the MR4 benchmark was revised to make it more robust. We moved the Ave24 to 2/3M48. And we took in half of stock options, not the full amount, in order to reduce the volatility. We increased the numbers to eight persons in the six professions and we moved to the median, instead of the mean, to take care of this outlier problem. The rank positions of the MR4 benchmark among the top 1,000 earners have been remarkably stable and this shows that the benchmark is quite robust. The rank position of the MR4 benchmark for YA1999 was 206th and in YA2006, it was 201st - remarkably stable. The benchmark formula, as I said, has been designed to take care of outliers and that is why we have taken the median in the six professions and we have also applied a one-third discount. The median is $3.3 million. The one-third discount brings it to the benchmark number of $2.2 million. Some have pointed out that the individuals in the group of the top 48 earners change from year to year. It is therefore unfair for Ministers to be paid according to this benchmark every year. I will ask for a table* to be circulated and this is a table on the 'dwell' rate of the 48 top earners each year. *Cols. 357-358. On average, for the last six years, on a year to year basis, close to 40% of the top 48 income earners remained in the top group of 48.”
“We asked them to come in and take on even heavier commitments and responsibilities in serving the people. The sacrifices that they make when they decide to become MPs and office holders are real and unquantifiable. We cannot do much about reducing these. But what we can do is to reduce the financial sacrifices so that we reduce some of the impediments that might otherwise make it more difficult for good men and women to serve, and to make a difference for Singapore and Singaporeans. Ultimately, the choice is made by Singaporeans themselves at the General Elections, every five years. And the people have chosen wisely. They have rejected candidates who offer themselves, with doubtful capabilities and motivations, and selected good ones. That is one level of checks. But the PAP itself has another level of checks. We screen, test and select our candidates carefully and one of the key qualities that we look for is the willingness to serve the people. If his motivations are self-serving or to make money, we do not select him. And if we discover that that is what he is about after he has come in, we drop him. One can only hope that Mr Low has equally stringent processes for selecting the persons they offer as candidates to the people because if you do not have transparency and you do not have discussion in this House, as we have been doing these last few days, we cannot be sure that the people that we bring into the office are the right ones. Now, let me deal with some of the issues on benchmarks. Many MPs have spoken on this - Mr Inderjit Singh, Mr Gautam Banerjee, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Alvin Yeo, Mrs Josephine Teo, Mr Chiam See Tong, Dr Loo Choon Yong, Ms Denise Phua.”
“The key lies in how we make sure that the people who serve are motivated by the desire to serve and to do their best for the country and our people. The key is in choosing the right people. The approach we take is a practical one. In the last election, the Prime Minister asked me to help induct new candidates for the People's Action Party into this House and I am glad to see that many of them are now making substantive contributions in this House, in their constituencies to their constituents, serving them, doing good work for them. When I asked them to come in, personally I knew that I was asking each one of them to make a sacrifice. Those who were prepared to come in have come in, agreed to do so and they never talked to me about it, they did not mention it to me but I could see the doubts, the concerns, that little flicker in the eye where it said, "Is this really what I'm going to do? Is this what I'm getting into?" Some had to give up their jobs, they had mortgages. But what I could see was they were most concerned about the family, "Will I have time for my wife, my husband, my children, to look after my ageing parents?" and then the uncertainty – would they be able to make good MPs, to live up to the expectations of the public, to live up to the expectations of the people that they hope to serve and the privacy they would lose because any shortcomings or failures would be exposed in a most public way possible. We looked for people who have shown commitment and concern for their fellow men. A good number had already been active in the community, in NGOs, before we fielded them. Ms Denise Phua is one of them. Mr Lim Biow Chuan himself served many years in the grassroots.”
“As I said earlier, it is an inverse relationship - the more the salary, the less the moral authority, and the less the salary, the higher the moral authority. I think this is not the correct way of thinking about it. What is most important is the motivations of the person and his willingness to devote his time and energies to serving and to making a difference. If a person is motivated by money, then even a low salary has its dangers. As pointed out by Mr Alvin Yeo, if the motivation is money, there are more effective and less public ways of using one's position to make money than to have an open debate on salaries, as we are having in Parliament. Sir, I was rather disappointed by Mr Low Thia Khiang who said that it was a waste of time and money to have such a debate in Parliament. But, Sir, this debate shows precisely how transparent the Government is. We are even prepared to come forward, speak in this House, have it debated publicly on a subject which can be as emotive and as personally discomfiting as discussing salaries. So I am somewhat disappointed with Mr Low that he is actually against such transparency. Would he prefer a system where Ministers and civil servants’ salaries are a murky secret? Ms Denise Phua should be assured that it is by this very transparency, that we make sure what she called the "nexus of power and money" will not arise in Singapore because we present what we do openly and transparently. It is for the people to see and judge. It is where there is no such transparency where politicians may take a pittance but actually amass a fortune that we need to be most concerned about the nexus of power and money. But back to the subject of moral authority.”
“But, at least, they agree that we have to pay competitive salaries for a good public service. This is already quite a big step forward. Because if we look back 15-20 years, even as recently as 10-12 years, this may not have been so easily accepted. People say, "The civil service is an iron rice bowl. There is no need to pay them competitive salaries. Just enough for them to get by will do." The fact that we have taken this step forward that civil servants need to be paid competitive salaries, and the majority, in fact, almost all Members of this House, support that, is a major advance. Indeed, in many countries, civil servants are lowly paid. The result is poor quality of public services, and civil servants who are more focused on using their public office for private profit, whether it is a policeman at a roadblock, a tester at a driving centre, or a senior officer in charge of granting approvals and licences, whether these licences are really necessary or not for the proper functioning of the country and society. I am glad that many Members also support the concept of benchmarking the pay of office holders to the types of jobs they could otherwise be doing, but not all agree with this and not all agree with the method and the methodology that we have chosen. I do agree with Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Siew Kum Hong that it is indeed an honour and privilege to come into public office, and to lead and to serve. Public service is an honourable duty, with intrinsic rewards. Some go further and argue that by comparing salaries of officer holders in this way, it undermines the whole concept of service and the moral authority of Ministers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate and to take the opportunity to respond to many of the points that Members have raised in this House. I should say that the Prime Minister intends to speak tomorrow. So those Members who are going to speak after me should not feel disappointed, as the Prime Minister will take care of the points which they raise. First of all, I would like to thank all the MPs who have spoken. What was gratifying to me was to see that we all share the same objective. We are trying to make Singapore a better place for all Singaporeans. And that we all also appreciate the necessity of having a good public service, and this is an important institution which we need to nurture, cultivate, grow and develop if we want Singapore to be that better place which we all want it to be. The question is how to achieve this. Let me address the key issues raised under five themes. We have talked a lot about the benchmarking. We have talked about alternatives. We have talked about pensions and independent panel. We have also talked about the difference between the private and the public sectors - risk, accountability, reward - performance and career management in the civil service and also the income gap and timing of this adjustment. First, let me talk about this principle of pegging salaries to the market, and also whether or not by paying Ministers and civil servants more, Ministers in particular, then the moral authority is lost, as though there is some inverse proportionality between the two. I am glad that most Members of the House, if not all, have actually spoken in favour of market comparable salaries for our civil servants. Some, of course, have suggestions on how this salary level is determined. I will deal with these later.”
“Sir, I do not carry the numbers in my head. If the Member could submit a Question, I would be happy to answer it. Column No : 210 FORMULA 1 RACING IN SINGAPORE The following Question stood in the name of Mdm Ho Geok Choo - 2. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what is his Ministry's position on the recent comment by the Malaysian Youth and Sports Minister that Singapore should not establish Formula 1 racing in view of the fact that it will be competing with Malaysia. Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): Question No. 2, Sir.”
“44, I beg to move, That the Ministerial Statement on the Civil Service Salary Revisions be considered by Parliament. Question proposed. *Cols. 181-194. 3.55 pm”
“He wrote a book and in his recent book called "Singapore’s Success - Engineering Economic Growth", Dr Ghesquire analysed Singapore’s rapid development. In the concluding chapter, he wrote and I quote: "Singapore succeeded because its leadership was assiduous, highly intelligent in a practical way, determined to achieve shared prosperity, and committed to act with integrity. Leading with vision and fortitude is possible. Its benefits can be invaluable. This is Singapore's ultimate lesson." Sir, we know financial rewards cannot and should not be the main motivation of those in the Public Service. There are many intrinsic rewards that come from working in the public sector. However, that does not mean that we do not need to pay them market-competitive salaries. We do not want pay to be the reason for people to join us. But we also do not want pay to be the reason for them not to join us, or to leave after joining us. Few countries have implemented our philosophy and practice of benchmarking and paying public officers salaries that are pegged to the market, but this system has worked for us. Competitive wages have helped us bring in and retain able men and women in Government and in the Public Service in Singapore. This policy has served us well. We must maintain this competitive advantage - a clean, effective and efficient Public Service. We need a team of good people to develop the vision, ideas and plans, as well as to see through the execution. In the end, what is our objective? Our objective is to have a public service that works, that works for the people of Singapore. This way, we will be better placed to realise our vision and dreams for Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, pursuant to Standing Order No.”
“One group comprises the former officeholders and Members of Parliament who were elected between 1959 and 1980 and retired before December 1992 and are now drawing a pension. They were among the first generation of leaders who toiled during the early years of independent Singapore and did not have a chance to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Another group is the civil service pensioners who worked with the Government during the turbulent times of the 1950s and 1960s and who retired before January 1982. These pensioners served at a time when civil service pay was lagging well behind the private sector. Some did not enjoy the benefits of employers' CPF contribution while others did not have their wage increase consolidated into their pensionable salaries. We would like to acknowledge these early pioneers and their dedicated service, even as the civil service adjusts its pay level for the current batch of officers. In 1996 and 2000, we made ex-gratia payments to these two groups as a tangible recognition of their contributions during the early years of nation building. This year, we will make another gesture in the form of an ex-gratia payment of the same quantum to these two groups. The payment is estimated to cost $2 million for 43 retired MPs and officeholders. About 2,400 civil service pensioners are expected to receive the payment, costing $7.6 million. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, three weeks ago, I met Dr Henri Ghesquire. He had worked in the International Monetary Fund for over 27 years advising and observing many countries. He served in Singapore in 2004 and 2005 as Director of the IMF-Singapore Regional Training Institute.”
“As MPs do not receive these components, their annual package has decreased as a proportion of the SR9 annual package. The current MP annual allowance is 47% of the SR9 annual package. We will bring the MPs’ allowance back to 56% of the SR9 annual salaries. The monthly MP allowance will be raised from the current $11,900 to $13,200. The GDP Bonus will also be extended to MPs, so as to link their annual package to the state of the economy. MPs will receive one month of GDP bonus if GDP grows at 5%, and up to two months of GDP bonus if the GDP growth reaches or exceeds 8%. But if GDP growth is 2% or less, there will be no GDP bonus paid. This is the same as the GDP bonus at the SR9 level. The combined changes will bring the 2007 Members of Parliament package back to 56% of the SR9 package, similar to the 1995 levels. We will make corresponding adjustments to the allowances for Non-constituency MPs and Nominated Members of Parliament. We will also increase the allowances for a Member of Parliament to engage a Legislative Assistant from $1,000 to $1,300 and for a Secretarial Assistant from $350 to $500. Costing All the adjustments will take effect from 1st April 2007. The total salary revisions for the Civil Service will increase the Government’s wage bill by about $214 million or 4.7%. The wage bill for political appointment holders will increase by $10.5 million (or 23%) to $56 million. Ex-gratia payment The pay revisions outlined above are to ensure that we continue to have a good public service for the future. We should, however, not forget those who have laboured hard to lay the strong foundation for us.”
“But we will make a performance-based payment of 0.5 to 0.75 month. This is in line with other civil servants whose schemes are at or close to their benchmarks. This payment, together with the higher GDP bonus paid out this year, will raise annual SR9 salaries by 3%, from $372,000 to $384,000. About 36% of the revised salary package will be variable depending on how well the economy and the individual perform. The salaries for grades between SR9 and Staff Grade I or MR4, will be adjusted by between 3% at SR9 and 33% at MR4. We will watch private sector salaries at the SR9 benchmark carefully. Should we see the market moving, we will move promptly to make a further adjustment, later this year if necessary. I will now ask for the tables* on the Civil Service revisions and on the 2000, 2006 and revised 2007 salaries for PM, Minister (MR4), and SR9, including ranking information to be circulated. The tables will also include the salaries and rankings for the President, the Senior Minister, Minister Mentor and the DPMs. [Copies of tables circulated to hon. Members. ] Adjustments for MP Allowance We will also adjust the allowance for Members of Parliament. The Members of Parliament Allowance is pegged to the Administrative Service SR9 grade. MPs currently receive a monthly allowance, as well as the Non-Pensionable Annual Allowance or the 13th month pay, and they also receive the Annual Variable Component which is paid in July and December each year. In 1995, the annual package for Members of Parliament was $100,500, or 56% of the SR9 annual package. Over the years, the SR9 annual package has risen but with a large proportion of the increase paid as annual components - the GDP Bonus and performance bonus.”
“The Service Bonus will be increased to seven months which is in line with a two-month increase in Performance Bonus quantum that those in grades MR4 and above could qualify for. About 20% of their salaries will be predicated on the GDP bonus. All the salary revisions are non-pensionable. There will be no increase in pension cost. The new salary levels will bring the rankings of MR4 and above salaries amongst all income earners to a level comparable to their rankings in 2000. The Prime Minister's salary currently ranks 164th among income earners. After the revision, the Prime Minister's salary, at $3.1 million, will rank 102nd among the private sector earners. In 2000, the Prime Minister's salary ranked 63rd. The MR4 salary currently ranks 769th among income earners. The revised MR4 package will rank 438th compared with 367th in 2000. Adjustments for SR9 We have to make sure that salaries at the SR9 benchmark stay competitive to retain our top officers. For Administrative Officers who are bonded, their bonds will be ending when they are in their late 20s and early 30s. This is a critical juncture in their careers, when they will ponder alternative career options. These officers are most mobile and likely to be drawn to all the attractions of the private sector, in particular the banking industry. At the Superscale entry grade, or SR9 grade, our salaries are close to the benchmark level. But we should be mindful that the benchmark measures salaries received in 2005, almost two years ago. The market for talented young professionals is very competitive and we expect that market salaries have risen further in 2006 and 2007. As the SR9 salary is currently near its benchmark, we will not be making any adjustment to the monthly salaries at this grade or in the grades below.”
“They will continue to be accorded the use of an official car. This car benefit will be subject to tax. Second, we will revise the GDP Bonus. This bonus payment depends on the real growth figure for the year. Currently, the norm payment is two months, if the economy grows by 5%. There will be no GDP bonus if the economy grows by 2% or less, but a maximum of four months will be given out if the economy grows by 8% or more. In between, the bonus varies linearly with the real GDP growth rate. We will put a major part of the salary increase into the GDP Bonus, to make a larger proportion of the annual salary package dependent on growth of the economy. Ultimately, every senior civil servant and appointment holder plays a role in ensuring that Singapore continues to thrive and prosper. We will increase the bonus to a norm payment of three months, if the economy grows by 5%. The minimum payment will still remain at zero if the economy grows by 2% or less. The maximum will be increased to eight months, if the economy grows by 10% or more. Third, in line with our philosophy of paying for performance, we will increase the Performance Bonus by two months for officers at this level, to typically seven months. With the above revisions, close to half or 47% of the annual package of MR4 grades and above will be variable, compared to about one-third or 34% today. 20% of their salaries will be predicated on the GDP bonus. Another quarter of their salary is performance-dependent. The Prime Minister decides on the level of performance bonus each Minister receives. The President, Prime Minister, Judiciary and Statutory Appointment Holders currently receive a fixed Service Bonus of five months instead of Performance bonus.”
“The percentage increase in monthly salaries tapers off progressively for the higher grades. We will restructure the pay to remove components which are no longer relevant and to build up performance-linked components. We will make three main changes - removing of the Car Allowance, increasing the GDP Bonus and increasing the Performance Bonus. First, the Car Allowance. This is a legacy payment from the time when the Civil Service stopped providing senior officers with an official car. The Car Allowance is currently 2.5 times the monthly salary of the officer. This is not the market practice. Typically, private sector companies pay car or transport allowance at a flat rate. As the Car Allowance is no longer relevant, we will remove it formally. In its place, we will increase the GDP Bonus which depends on the performance of the economy, and performance bonus which depends on the individual's performance. This will apply to all appointment holders, the Administrative Service, as well as senior officers in all Ministries and statutory boards. I should emphasise that the Car Allowance is already counted into the annual salary package of these officers. Hence, this change does not change the total annual salary package but restructures it to be more performance-based. The President, Prime Minister and Speaker do not currently receive the Car Allowance as they are provided with an official car. The restructured salaries, however, that replace the Car Allowance do so with higher GDP Bonus and Performance Bonus. The President, Prime Minister and Speaker will draw this new restructured salary. The total salaries of the President and the Prime Minister will increase by about 25%, close to the average percentage for the MR4 grade and above.”
“For this round, we have looked carefully at the benchmarks again, and have found that they remain sound. They follow economic and employment market conditions up and down. But after calculating the benchmark figure, we also do a check against private-sector income earners and we rank them against private-sector income earners. The ranking of the benchmark against the private sector income earners is stable and does not fluctuate widely. I understand that many Members have views and suggestions on this issue and I look forward to hearing their views and ideas. Salary revisions - adjustments for MR4 Salaries at the MR4 Grade are currently at 55% of the benchmark. Given the large gap, it is not realistic to close the gap fully in one go. Instead, we will close half the gap, ie, from 55% of the benchmark to 77% of the benchmark by the end of this year. This will be effected in two steps - one step now, and another step at the end of the year, to bring it to 77%. Next year, we aim to close half of the remaining gap, bringing salaries to 88% of the benchmark by the end of 2008. But for now, in the first step, we will increase the annual salaries for MR4 grades and above, by an average of 25%. The percentage increase will range from 33% at MR4, decreasing to 14% at the higher grades. The annual salary at MR4 will be increased from $1.2 million to $1.6 million. This will bring the MR4 salary to 73% of the benchmark, fairly close to the 77% of benchmark we want to be at, at the end of this year. The revisions will be effected through adjustments to both monthly salaries and annual components. Monthly salaries for the MR4 grade and above will be increased by an average of 15%. Monthly salaries at the MR4 grade will be increased by 22.5% from $42,800 to $52,400.”
“The principle of benchmarking Ministers’ and senior civil servants’ pay has been established and widely debated in Parliament. Our philosophy is to pay competitive salaries to facilitate the recruitment and retention of the quality of talent we need for the Government and public sector. To do so, we have to benchmark against the comparable top jobs in the private sector. These are the realistic alternatives that a student considering a scholarship, or a person considering a career in the public sector could pursue. Indeed, for the public officers in their 20s and 30s, their peers in school and university would be pursuing just such careers and, in a rising job market, these are precisely the jobs that headhunters are targeting them for. For those considering whether to serve in political office, these are often the careers that they are currently pursuing with good prospects of rising further in the private sector. Some of those in their late 30s or 40s are at or near the top jobs in their companies or field of work. Sir, there is no perfect method for doing this benchmarking. The methodology of establishing these two market benchmarks at SR9 and MR4 was set out in the White Paper on ‘Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government’ in 1994. The White Paper was thoroughly debated in this House. In 2000, when the last salary adjustments were made, the benchmarking methodology was reviewed and there was a thorough debate in this House again. The benchmark of 15P32 for SR9 was found to be sound, while the benchmark for MR4 was modified in 2000 to make it more robust by expanding the base to the current top eight income earners in each of the six professions, to discount stock option gains by 50%, and using the median rather than the mean.”
“In 2000, SR9 salaries were at 67% of the benchmark and we adjusted salaries then to close the gap fully, to increase salaries by 50%. This benchmark dipped in 2004 to 2005, but has since risen. It currently stands at $361,000, similar to what it was in 2000. The SR9 salaries were reduced during 2001-2003 due to the economic recession but the cuts have since been restored. Currently, the SR9 salaries are close to the benchmark. At the MR4 grade, salaries were at 71% of the benchmark in 2000. We raised salaries to 80% of the benchmark then, with the intent of closing the gap over a three-year period. We made the first adjustment in the first half of 2001, raising salaries to $1.2 million, according to plan. Thereafter, Ministers and senior civil servants took a pay cut of 10% after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and another 10% cut after SARS in 2003. The two cuts were restored about two years later, in July 2004 and January 2005, respectively. So, that is the red line on the chart. Since then, there have not been any salary adjustments for the Administrative Service. Salaries at the MR4 level are at $1.2 million, the same level as in 2001. In the meantime, the blue line, the benchmark for MR4 has moved. It rose from $1.4 million in YA2000 to $1.9 million in YA2001, reflecting income that was earned during 2000, which was a *Cols. 175-180. particularly good year for Singapore. Thereafter, the benchmark dipped during the recession years, but it never fell below the $1.4 million mark. In recent years, the benchmark has increased, in tandem with Singapore’s good economic growth. Currently, it is at $2.2 million, based on income earned in 2005. This also means that, at the MR4 level, salaries are now at 55% of the benchmark, compared to 71% in 2000.”
“It is one of the schemes that have fallen behind their benchmarks. The salaries of Administrative Officers are pegged to two market benchmarks. I will now ask for the slides to be projected. At the SR9 grade, which is the entry level into the Superscale grades, the benchmark is defined as the salary of the 15th person, aged 32 years, hence, 15P/32, from six professions, namely, bankers, lawyers, engineers, accountants, employees of MNCs and local manufacturers. The next slide will illustrate how the benchmark is computed and derived. It, too, sorts the top earners aged 32 by income and then find the 15th person, the median. Administrative Officers at the SR9 grade are typically in director-level positions in their organisations. The second benchmark is set at the higher end, the Staff Grade I, or what we call the MR4 grade. This is the grade at which senior Permanent Secretaries are paid. The benchmark is defined as two-thirds of the median salary among the top eight earners in the same six professions. This is also the entry-level grade for Ministers. We first find the top eight earners from the six professions. We sort the 48 persons by income, we find the median income earner, ie, between the 24th and 25th, and then we multiply the result by two-thirds, so there is a one-third discount of this median income. Last month, we released information on how the two benchmarks and actual salaries have moved over the last seven years. This has been widely reported. I will briefly recap the trends and request Members to refer to the handouts* [Copies of handouts distributed to hon. Members]. The income tax data that we are using for the benchmarks are for Year of Assessment 2006, ie, for income earned in 2005. The benchmark salaries are, therefore, almost two years old.”
“We set very high standards for admission into the Administrative Service. Officers with high ability and potential from all schemes in the Public Sector, as well as private sector candidates are welcome, regardless of whether they had previously received scholarships or not. They are brought into the Administrative Service so long as they meet the stringent requirements and have a passion for and dedication and commitment to Public Service. Once brought in, they are developed, stretched in challenging responsibilities and tested for future top appointments in the Public Service. A lot is demanded from our Administrative Officers. They are expected not only to do their primary jobs well, but to also actively lead, participate and contribute to inter-agency issues and service-wide initiatives. This is a key role of the Administrative Service - to ensure that the whole Public Service operates with collective vision and coherence. The officers are assessed rigorously every year and those who do not meet the mark are asked to leave the Administrative Service. They may then be transferred to another scheme in the Public Service. There are also officers who themselves ask to leave the Administrative Service as they prefer a more specialised area of work. Those who make it to top positions as Deputy Secretaries and Permanent Secretaries have fixed term appointments, and are expected to step down at the end of the term to make way for younger officers. This provides for orderly succession and a pipeline of potential future Public Service leaders in order to maintain the drive and energy of the whole Public Service. Administrative Service Salary Benchmarks The salaries of the Administrative Service were last adjusted in 2000.”
“Junior officers will also receive performance-based payments ranging between 0.75 and 1.5 months. In addition, to address the market pay gap, we will increase their monthly salaries by 4%-5%. Beyond pay, the Ministry of Home Affairs will also be looking at other aspects to better attract and retain their officers. There will be more opportunities for junior officers to progress into the senior ranks. The Ministry is also streamlining its promotion and ranking process, and reviewing benefits and other terms, to make the Home Uniformed Services a more attractive career. After the review is completed, a second adjustment will be made later this year to close the remaining gap. The Singapore Armed Forces will make similar salary adjustments to maintain competitiveness. The Foreign Service is also lagging the market substantially. Our diplomats are a small but critical group of officers who promote and safeguard Singapore’s interests in the international arena. Foreign Service officers will receive a market adjustment of 0.75 months. In addition, the performance bonus structure has been revised to identify and reward the top performers better. Annual increments have also been increased and tied to performance. Other adjustments include a revision of the monthly salaries at the entry grades and a revamp of the retention bonus framework. On average, Foreign Service officers can expect an 8% salary increase. Administrative Service and P/J/S appointment holders Administrative Service Let me now move on to the salary adjustments for the Administrative Service, and Political, Judicial and Statutory Appointment Holders. The Administrative Service is at the core of the Public Service. Administrative Officers serve in many of the top Public Service leadership posts.”
“In particular, we will need to identify, develop, and reward more substantially, those among the Management Executive officers who are performing very well and have demonstrated the capability to take on greater responsibilities. The review will be completed in the second half of 2007. There will be a second round of adjustment later this year when the review is completed. The form of the adjustment will depend on the findings or recommendations of the review. In the same vein, we are making changes to the Management Support Scheme and Technical Support Scheme, which employ officers with diploma qualifications. These schemes are also lagging behind their benchmarks, and we will make a performance-based payment of 0.5-1 month. Good performers will receive up to 0.5 month, and the better ones, up to 1 month. Similarly, a more fundamental review of the Management Support Scheme is ongoing, and we will make a further adjustment before the end of the year. The Home Affairs Uniformed Services, comprising the Police, Prisons, Civil Defence and Narcotics services, are lagging their benchmarks by up to 26% in certain grades. As the gap is large, these services require major adjustments. These services are now dealing with more complex and challenging tasks given the threat of terrorism and the increased security measures required. We need to pay our Home Team officers competitively, so that the uniformed services will be well-staffed and able to address any emergency. The first step of this adjustment will be carried out now, amounting to 10%-13%. Senior officers in the Home Uniformed Services will receive a performance-based payment of 1-1.5 months, with the higher quantum going to better performers.”
“These schemes of service, which will receive the basic tier for officers who have shown more than satisfactory performance, account for approximately two thirds of the officers in the Civil Service. Schemes which are lagging the market There is a group of schemes which is lagging the market, for which we will make larger increases than the basic tier to close the gap. I will highlight the key services, namely the Management Executive Scheme, the Management Support Scheme, the Home Uniformed Services and the Foreign Service. Collectively, these schemes account for almost one-third of the officers in the Civil Service. Graduate officers on the Management Executive Scheme work across all Ministries performing a wide range of jobs, including policy development and implementation, corporate services and operations work. Salaries for this group of officers have fallen behind the market. We need to make an upward adjustment of 16% this year in order to level up. As a first step, we will halve the gap through a 5%-8% adjustment. This will be in the form of a performance-based payment of 0.75-1.25 months of salary. Good performers will receive up to 0.75 month, which is equivalent to a 5% increase, and the better performers will receive up to 1.25 months. A more fundamental review of the Management Executive Scheme is also ongoing. The review will look into all aspects, including pay, career advancement and progression, job challenges as well as training and development of officers. We want to make the scheme more attractive, both to fresh graduates, as well as to mid-career entrants to the Civil Service.”
“5 month whilst better performers will receive up to 0.75 month. This payment will apply to schemes which are currently at or close to their market benchmarks. It will ensure Civil Service salaries are competitive. On top of this payment, civil servants will continue to receive their annual increment and the mid-year annual variable payment. Like other Singaporeans, they will also enjoy the 1.5% increase in the employer CPF contribution from July this year. This payment will apply to the Education Service, the Corporate Support Scheme and the Operations Support Scheme. The Education Service completed its review last year, but there are still issues to be addressed. The Ministry of Education will be adjusting starting salaries, and making corresponding adjustments for teachers who were recently appointed. We must also identify high-calibre teachers who have the potential to make it as our future leaders in education and develop and reward them in a timely manner. Corporate Support Officers and Operations Support Officers will also receive this basic tier. The payments will be made next month, in May. If the economy continues to do well and the higher market salaries are sustained, these payments will be incorporated into the annual performance bonuses of these schemes of service so that officers who are performing well will continue to receive them. We will also be looking into re-designing the jobs and upgrading the skills of our officers in the Corporate Support, Operations Support and similar schemes. Traditionally, these schemes have been designed with rather narrow job scopes. We will work together with the public sector unions to prepare our officers to take on a wider scope of work and responsibilities, and provide more opportunities for progression.”
“We dropped starting salaries by 10% during the recession years, and increased them when the economy recovered in recent years. With effect from June this year, we will raise starting salaries to keep pace with the market. For a graduate with a Good Honours degree who is appointed to the Management Executive Scheme, the starting salary will be raised by about 10%. Starting salaries of other graduate schemes will be adjusted according to their market benchmarks. We will also adjust the salaries of officers who have been appointed recently, to maintain relativities with the incoming batch of fresh graduates. We will continue to monitor our salaries at these entry grades and make adjustments as necessary to maintain competitiveness. Schemes with In-Built Market Adjustment Components Some Civil Service professional schemes, such as accountants, economists and statisticians, have an in-built “market adjustment component”. The market salaries of these professions tend to be volatile - with large bonuses in boom times, but falling sharply during a recession. The market adjustment component allows the annual salaries of these schemes to be adjusted rapidly, up or down, without affecting the monthly salaries. We will raise the market adjustment components of these schemes according to their individual benchmarks. There is no further need to make other forms of adjustment for this group. According to Mercer HR Consulting, private sector salaries are projected to increase by 4% in 2007. For the officers in the Civil Service, we will make a basic payment amounting to 3%-5% increase in the annual salaries. This payment will be performance-based and will be in the range of 0.5-0.75 months. Good performers will receive up to 0.”
“These issues have to be addressed so that a career in the Civil Service will remain attractive not just to young people fresh out of school, but also to serving officers. That is why, in conjunction with the pay increases, we will continue with our reviews to address the fundamental issues for specific services. Let me give a recent example. The Education Service was reviewed in August last year. We raised the starting salaries and increased the retention bonuses for the teachers. But the review went beyond pay. The Ministry of Education solicited feedback from teachers and made changes to allow teachers to have study scheme leave, to take longer periods of study leave, a special fund was set up for teachers to use for learning and developmental needs, and promotional grades were added for classroom teachers. This year, some 10,000 teachers have been promoted, many of them to the new promotional grades introduced in the restructured scheme of service. I will now brief the House on the pay revisions for the different groups of civil servants. The revisions will apply to the Civil Service. Statutory Boards will review their salaries concurrently and make adjustments, where appropriate. A number of Statutory Boards (eg, EDB, MAS) have already adjusted their salaries earlier this year. Starting salary revisions As I mentioned earlier, at the entry level, the competition for fresh university graduates is getting more intense. The recent surveys by the Singapore Management University, and preliminary indications for NUS and NTU show that pay offers for fresh graduates have been rising. For example, the average salary offer for a SMU graduate is about $2,800. The Civil Service has adjusted starting salaries annually to keep in step with the market, both upwards and downwards.”
“Let me explain the approach we have taken and the principles behind this round of revision. First, we are not making a uniform across-the-board revision, where everyone receives a standard ‘x%’ increase. Adjustments are made according to the needs of individual schemes. Where the salaries are severely lagging the market and there are high attrition rates, we will make larger adjustments. Where the lag is smaller, we will, of course, make smaller adjustments. Some schemes have been reviewed recently, and are already being paid close to market salaries. Second, we will bring our salary structures more in line with our philosophy of linking pay to performance. Many of the adjustments will not be in the monthly salaries but in the form of a performance-related payment. Only those civil servants who have performed beyond the satisfactory level will receive this performance-based payment, with those performing very well receiving a higher amount. These payments allow us to close wage gaps quickly this year. For subsequent years, these payments are likely to be incorporated into the performance bonus structure of the officers, if the market salary levels are sustained, so that those who are consistently good performers will continue to enjoy the higher salaries. For schemes which are lagging severely behind the market, we would have to adjust both monthly salaries and annual components in order to close the gap. Third, we recognise that salaries alone are not the panacea to our problems. We need to look at the whole career proposition, such as sense of purpose, job scope, interesting assignments, exciting career prospects, and developmental opportunities.”
“Singaporeans are being attracted to these jobs, including one young ex-SAF officer who was featured in the report. As I informed the House in March, the Civil Service is experiencing the effects of the tightening labour market. Our overall resignation rate has increased from 4.8% in 2005 to 5.7% in 2006. We are losing our lawyers, accountants and management executives. The resignation rate of the Management Executive Scheme (which employs graduate officers across the Ministries) was 10.6%, up from 7.4% in 2005. At some of our entry grades, the situation is quite serious, with resignation rates as high as 25%. Members of the House would also have read from the newspapers that for our Home Team, there has been a 40% increase in the resignation of junior officers in January and February this year, compared to the same period last year. We need to act before the situation becomes more serious. The Government, as an employer, has to respond quickly and decisively to stay competitive and close the wage gaps. Otherwise, we will deplete the Service of the able people we need, and the service level to the public will be affected. Civil Service salary adjustments Approach The last major salary revision for the Civil Service was in 2000, seven years ago. During the recession years, civil service salaries moved down with the market, and were restored recently in 2005. In recent years, we have made adjustments to specific schemes that have fallen behind their benchmarks. For this review, we have taken a comprehensive look at all the schemes, assessed the attrition rates and wage levels of each scheme relative to their respective market comparisons, and identified the underlying issues affecting the schemes.”
“In February this year, a group of public officers attending one of the Civil Service College’s leadership training programmes, made a study trip to Dubai. At a networking dinner, they met a fellow Singaporean who had been headhunted to take up a very senior position in a Dubai company. He told our officials that his Chairman is very impressed with Singapore and the ability of Singaporeans. So, he promised his Chairman that every time he is back in Singapore, he will speak with two to three Singaporeans to interest them in working for his company. I do not know how often he comes home, but we should be worried. Paying competitive salaries For the Public Service to remain an attractive employer, our terms must keep pace with the private sector. That is why our policy is to pay public officers competitive salaries, salaries that are commensurate with private sector earnings. We do not seek to lead the market, but to keep pace with it. Salaries in the private sector have been moving rapidly, especially in the last two years, in certain sectors. In February this year, the two healthcare clusters adjusted nurses’ salaries upwards by 3%-7%. On 31st January 2007, a Business Times report cited that some law firms had raised salaries amid the growing demand for legal work and a shortage of lawyers. Reports from HR consultancies point to more firms hiring executives, and offering attractive salary packages to attract them. The financial and banking sector is growing rapidly and many potential job seekers are attracted to it. According to a 12th February Wall Street Journal report, there is a shortage of talent in the private banking sector. The earnings of some of the relationship managers in Singapore surpass the pay levels in Switzerland.”
“We must commit to pay competitive wages for our officers and provide them with the development and training to improve and stretch themselves so that they can better contribute to their agencies. We must make the Public Service an organisation that provides our officers with a sense of meaning and mission, that ultimately it exists to serve the people of Singapore. We see such examples everyday in the work of our public officers. Many go the extra mile to work for the good of Singaporeans, not just at the policy level, but also at the individual level, helping to deal with and solve the problems of individual Singaporeans. We recognise the most outstanding of such efforts every year with the PS21 Star Service Awards. I hope to see more of such examples. Officers who work in our Ministries and statutory boards must feel a sense of challenge and must believe that individually and collectively, they make a real difference in the lives of Singaporeans. We need to tap on their passion, energy and mobilise them to do their best, and achieve their best - for Singaporeans and for themselves. Making sure we can get and keep good people Attracting and retaining able people to build a team, especially those who have the potential to take up top leadership positions in the Public Service is however becoming more difficult. Final year students in our local universities are invited to attend many tea sessions and career talks, and many are now offered jobs three to six months before graduation. The competition for talent is not just within Singapore. Our people are being talent-hunted to work in Hong Kong, China or Vietnam and the Middle East.”
“The standards expected of the public service today are higher. And public officers can expect more to be asked of them. Demanding customers spur improvements. Public officers do not have all the answers. We have to do more to cultivate a serious listening ear, to better understand the needs of the public and to consider ideas and suggestions to improve the way we work and serve the public. There is a need to constantly improve. Good People are Key How do we do this? The key is to have good people in the Service, enough of them, with the right values and passion for Public Service - well-led, well-trained and well-motivated. We need good people and leaders to helm our various institutions and services - principals for our schools, commanders of our police divisions, managers of our various line departments and customer touch points. We also need the support of our rank and file officers who quietly do good work behind the scenes, or courteously at the counters, helping to implement and execute policies well. To bring it all together, to provide vision and coherence, and set the tone and direction, we also need exceptional public service leadership. This means having strong and capable leaders who can anticipate challenges and change, take a long-term strategic view, tackle the complex issues, and yet at the same time come up with workable solutions that are needed today. We need leaders who can energise, organise and galvanise the Public Service to move the agenda forward and ensure that implementation accords with intent. Sense of Meaning and Mission As a progressive employer, the Public Service’s human resource management practices must keep pace.”
“This is possible because we have strong institutions, and a team of dedicated officers at all levels who will work through the details and carry out the plans - Biopolis, Marina Bay, upgrading of our housing estates, skills redevelopment, Workfare, preparing for an ageing society, making our waterways active, beautiful and clean. Going forward, the opportunities and challenges confronting Singapore are increasingly complex. There are no 'ten-year series' or 'model answers'. The Public Service has to break new ground and draw upon the ideas and energies of the private and people sectors to address these challenges together - to develop our own solutions, challenge old paradigms, experiment with untested approaches and learn from our mistakes along the way. Singaporeans have a Public Service they can all be proud of. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) 2007 Report, and the World Economic Forum’s 2006 Global Competitiveness Report ranked Singapore first in the quality and competence of its Public Service. Here, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank every public officer for his or her contribution to Singapore. It does not matter which service or agency you work in. Every officer can and should be proud of being part of the Singapore Public Service, a highly respected and well regarded organisation. We do not have to just rely on comparisons by think-tanks. Every Singaporean who travels abroad will, in his heart, be grateful for the quiet efficiency, courtesy and impartiality of our public officers when they cross the immigration and customs counters at their various ports of entry and exit around the world. But the Service can and must do better. Singaporeans are more informed, and vocal.”
“Eight or nine years ago, when I was the Minister for Education, I briefed the EDB's International Advisory Council on our then new initiatives in education. These were a group of top CEOs - experienced industrialists and businessmen from the US, Europe and Japan, several of whom had sat on or given advice to their governments' education review panels. After listening to my briefing, they said, "We've heard all that before in our own countries. What makes you believe you can succeed in doing that when we have difficulties putting through similar reforms in our own countries?" That question gave me pause. Then I replied that it is because Singaporeans place great importance on education. And in the Ministry, we have the people and a system in place that will see this through. We also have a teachers' union that understands what we are doing. Instead of resisting change, they are supporting it - for example, organising courses in IT so that teachers can keep up-to-date. I am glad that my confidence in our parents and students, teachers, our educational administrators and our institutions has been proven right. Today, they have brought our system forward to new heights. As Minister-in-charge of Civil Service matters, I often hear from my counterparts from other countries that Singapore is a place where things happen. We do not just envision and talk, we act. Each time they re-visit us, what we talked about doing during their last visit would actually be already happening.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, modern Singapore is a testimony to the perseverance, ingenuity and hard work of our people. In a short span of 40 years, we have transformed our island state into a developed nation. Singaporeans enjoy peace, stability, economic progress, good housing, healthcare, education, and a clean and safe environment. The mission of the Public Service is to work with the elected Government to ensure Singapore’s continued survival, security and success. Public officers work with the political leadership as stewards of Singapore’s present and future. The work of the Public Service is closely linked to the lives of Singaporeans. Through the work it does, the Public Service provides infrastructure, homes, education, and law and order. It creates a conducive environment for Singaporeans to create wealth, earn a living, raise a family and lead a fulfilling life. We have a diverse group of officers, with different aptitudes and capabilities. There are policy developers, policemen, teachers, social workers, economists, statisticians, engineers, clerical and administrative staff. We need a whole host of officers with different backgrounds and talents in the Service - to think, plan, and do. Together, they make the Service tick. Richard Vietor, a Harvard Business School professor who specialises in teaching and research on business and government policy, recently published a book titled “How Countries Compete.” He devoted one chapter to Singapore and described us as “the best example of government that works.” And, indeed, ours is a Government that works for Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“The first loan can be used to purchase any type of flat according to the family's needs and affordability. The objective of the second concessionary loan is to help facilitate social mobility among HDB lessees, especially those with larger households and, hence, need to upgrade to a bigger flat type. It would not be appropriate to use the market value of a flat to determine a family’s eligibility for a second concessionary loan. Such a move would not serve the social objectives being promoted by the existing policy. Moreover, this would subject flat owners to much uncertainty about whether they qualify for a second concessionary loan, as the value of the flat is not static and may fluctuate according to changing market conditions and other factors.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would not want to set a target because that sets expectations which may not fit in with the employment requirements either of the civil service or the individual officer himself. I think what is more important is to follow the principles that we have outlined in accordance with the Tripartite Guidelines on the Employment of Older Workers Above 62 Years Old, which I enumerated just now. When we re-employ an officer, it should be based on the value that he can add, which is the scope of work and responsibility. The re-employed officers need not be limited to doing their previous jobs at their previous pay and we also provide for flexible work arrangements. The 19% that I mentioned just now does not include persons who may have been employed, say, on contract of the Government and who may be providing services to the Government. Some of these retired civil servants actually join such firms and seek re-employment that way. Also, some officers are re-employed on a casual basis, and those numbers are not in the 19%. Column No : 2837 HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Housing loans) 2. Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for National Development if the Ministry will consider redefining asset enhancement to allow the second subsidised HDB housing loan to be based on housing valuation and not on the number of rooms a flat has, as it can be considered to be a housing upgrade if an owner of a flat in a suburban area purchases another flat in a better location closer to town. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman) (for the Minister for National Development): Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB provides a maximum of two concessionary loans for each eligible citizen family to assist them to buy HDB flats.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Estimates of Expenditure for the financial year 2007/2008, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, may I seek your consent to move that progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow?”
“First of all, as I have explained at some length during my reply, we do not just buy high-end expensive stuff. We also go for good but cheap stuff and we improve it along the way through a variety of means, including through our scientists and engineers. But, yes, these are timeless classics. We study Sun Tzu in our colleges, we study Clausewitz, we study military history as an important component of training our officers. Because they have to understand what is the human side of war in order to be able to wage war, because that particular element will not change even though the weapons of war may change.”
“I suppose, in some quarters, memories can be short but, heaven forbid, if we were to be called upon again, I am sure that we will respond and Singaporeans will respond simply because it is the right thing to do, and Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines - these are all our neighbours and we are all brothers in ASEAN.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I think when it comes to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief we do these things because we feel that it is the right thing to do. I know that when the tsunami struck all along the Indian Ocean rim, there was a tremendous outpouring amongst Singaporeans, they wanted to do something to help. It was palpable. We could see that in our community - residents' committees and community centres were gathering together to collect money, food and clothing. School children were lining up to make contributions, they were volunteering at relief centres to pack goods, and so forth. There was such an outpouring. And the assistance that the SAF gave was part of that outpouring of goodwill, friendship, a common sense of humanity with our friends and neighbours, particularly in Indonesia and Thailand. What the SAF was able to contribute during this operation was to allow an expression on the part of Singaporeans of that sense of wanting to do something to help. I recall that the third LST that we sent - we sent three LSTs to Meulaboh in Indonesia - we brought along representatives of many of the NGO groups which had worked hard to make a contribution; and the commitment and dedication of those NGO and VWO volunteers when they got there was tremendous. It was something which has to be seen to be understood. I went to Meulaboh a couple of times and I saw them there; it was tremendous. So when it comes to humanitarian relief and disaster operations, we have to help because that was the right thing to do, and I still believe that it is the right thing to do despite the atmospherics that have happened in recent years. I am a little saddened by that.”