I can't help but feel that our Singapore government has some really good debaters. Because they actually have all kinds of rebuttals for arguments against all these ministerial pay rise issue. I'm sorry, I really have nothing against our government. I'm just another empathetic youth, politics doesn't interest me. Just that some of all these word games are fascinating.
I suppose what our government says makes sense, pay hike to maintain quality and all. After all, who will be really passionate about our dear Singapore other than maybe LKY who practically moulded Singapore and her politics. In this very real and cruel world, money screams at the top of its lungs. Money: Collect me! I am POWER! Which, to digress abit, leads to corruption. So, better pay more money so our capable ministers don't run away.
But honestly, the way our government puts it, makes some millions in the double digit a year sound like money they use to carpet the floors. I think that pisses people off. I mean, to alot of people, that is really alot of money, no matter how small a fraction is it of government expenditure or GDP. I dont't think it's very nice to make it sound like people are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Anyway, I'm really being stupid. But why would you want to compete with the private sector for capable people? Aren't you just concerned that these capable people go to foreign lands? Whether they are in the public sector or private sector, ultimately the money still stays in Singapore what, doesn't it? What's the point of a capable government if there's no capable people supporting the economy? Now I have another question. What's the link between government and economy? What is economy? Are public sector and private sector both part of the economy?
Omg hahaha. I'm like totally clueless, but pretending to make sense. Haha.
2 comments:
Hi there,
I can see you are quite interested and stirred up over this recent issue, and it is a good sign :) thumbs up if you have been actively engaged in the political news in singapore.It shows that you are someone that truly care.
Actually, both private and public sector are part of the economy. The key difference, lies in the degree of government intervention. A private sector,is defined as the sector of a nation's economy that consists of all that is outside the state. It includes a variety of entities such as for-profit and non-profit enterprises, corporations, banks (other than central banks), any other non-governmental organizations, as well as individuals not employed by the state.In this sector, different factors of production in various production activities are owned and managed privately by individuals or private corporate bodies.
To put it simply, private sectors are governed fully by forces of demand and supply with minimal goverment intervention.
On the other hand, public sector is when the paternalistic government steps in and influences on the natural forces of dd and ss, and policies governing certain companies or bodies.
Simple example.Compare, say, SGH and gleneagles hospital. When a SAF personnel consults a doctor in SGH, all relevant charges are omitted while if he visits gleneagles hospital, he has to bear the full cost of his medical bills.
This shows that public sector are rigged with government control in areas such as quality,pricing control and supply quotas. Goverment can intervene in price setting, in this case, subsidising prices for NS people and other beneficiaries, such as the aged. This is a form of ariticial pricing, meaning that prices are artificially controlled by governemnt instead of being determined by natural forces of demand and supply. Of course, there are other ways for gov to intervene, such as restricting quantity of employment in a public sector industry.
Private sector, on the other hand, let their prices be determined freely by demand and supply, and this means that competition might be very stiff as opposed to public sectors.
Regarding the ministerial pay issue, having qualms about it and posing questions as a challenge to the move shows your awareness of the issue.
Your take on the point that the rise in the entire pay of the civil sector should not be seen as just mere statistics issue is truly enlightening. Indeed, having a sense of proportion does not just mean calculating the increase as a percentage of the total GDP or output of a country; it also involves taking into account the purchasing power of the commoners. As much as we appreciate their indispensibility to our country, i also hope that they can equally appreciate the fact that we, as commoners, do think, and do feel, that the amount involved IS substantial. Perhaps a more gradual,subtle change instead of a all-at-one-shot leap in the figures of the salaries would have been more justified.
"But why would you want to compete with the private sector for capable people? Aren't you just concerned that these capable people go to foreign lands?"
Actually, the civil sector is the one responsible for policy making, goverment decisions etc. This means that the goverment needs these talented people in their sector, because private sector does not involve itself in or dabber in the political scene. they do not dictate policies, they do not deal with issues like taxes (which is key to investment), they do not deal in issues like bonuses/ international relationships. Private sectors are just out there,simply, to earn money.that is why the need to attract more to the public sector. So more can be involved in goverment policies and decision making.
Having said this, please do not take me as an advocate of the government:) Just wanted to clarify your views. I am still very much opposed to the sudden hike in civil servant's pay.
Post a Comment