publichouse.sg

In November last year, the Singapore Association of Social Workers (SASW) snubbed social worker, Mr Jolovan Wham, by withdrawing the “Outstanding Social Worker of the Year Award” and replacing it with the “Promising Social Worker Award” instead. (See our earlier report here.)

The association, after protests from Singaporeans, explained that the mistake was due to an “administrative oversight” and thus it would be "more appropriate" to present Mr Wham with the “Most Promising Social Worker Award”. The association added that this is “because he has only about seven years of relevant experience.” (Asia One.)

However, there is no such minimum period of service requirement for the award under the association’s own rules for qualification.

Mr Wham eventually declined the award.

Since independence, Singapore has been in a race to stay ahead, and in more ways than one. The city state boasts an impressive Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate which not a few others envy.

But more and more Singaporeans are beginning to question if this is the only ends towards which they are striving – propping up the numbers even as income disparity increases, and perhaps more importantly, whether the physical city itself is having its life strangled out of it.

It has been a week of angst, anger, and just about everything in-between – if you go by what is happening online. Since Gerard Ee and his committee released their report on ministerial salaries, views have flown fast and furious on the Internet.

What can be ascertained so far, from all the opinion expressed, is that there is no consensus except one – that the new formula for ministerial salaries is still flawed. That’s all well and good.

The problem is that evidently, agreement on what would constitute a flawless formula has not emerged, despite the many views expressed. This is not unexpected, given that each individual will see the pay issue from his or her own perspective.

Even among the opposition political parties, there are differing opinion on what the salaries should be and what they should be based on. Here’s a brief run-down:

The Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) recommends a S$672,000 salary for the prime minister.

The National Solidarity Party does not put a concrete figure on it but instead the party emphasises the “need to restore the ethos of public service in younger Singaporeans in order to attract the right kind of people, rather than to compete on financial terms.” Its secretary-general, Hazel Poa, was reported to also be against the removal of pensions, which the Ee committee has recommended to the government.

The opposition National Solidarity Party (NSP), which  contested unsuccessfully in the last General Election, says it finds the recommendations by the Ministerial Salary Review Committee “disappointing on both the choice of benchmark and salary levels.”

In a press release signed by its secretary-general, Ms Hazel Poa, the party says, “It is disappointing that our ministers’ salaries are still pegged to the top earners instead of the general wage levels.  It sends the message that our Ministers are in the same boat as the top earners and not with average person.  It rewards the ministers more as income inequality increases and top earners get a larger and larger share of the economic pie.”