The Uncontented Me

THE pay review is out.

There are a few things I feel miserable not expressing them.

Firstly, one of my ex-bosses once told us rookies that we are in civil service, so do not expect bonuses of more than two months.

That had left me in disillusion for close to ten years - that the government service is also 'civil service', since they always call themselves 'civil servants'. And that their bonus would be 2 times their monthly pay at most.

The pay review splashed across papers gave me a shock of my life. 6 months' bonus? more-than-20 months' bonus???

Are they talking about civil service at all? There must be a mistake somewhere. It's either the ministers are not civil servants or ministerial posts have nothing to do with civil service. This kind of bonus is only earned by the oil or stock brokers.

Why are the other small-fry civil servants' bonuses be capped at 2 months as the maximum, which means most of us get one month or a fraction of a month, while the ministers get at least 6 months? It totally disrupts my equilibrium of the understanding of the word 'civil service'.

When I was doing my 'O' levels, there was a literature text titled 'Animal Farm'. It was a satire about Marxism (or was it Communism?). Nevermind which ideology it was making light of.

From my weak recollection, the book was about how the animals on the farm decided that enough was enough and stayed united to chase the human rulers out of their lives. From then on, they were on their own.

One day, the animals decided to call for a meeting to decide on some rules and government.

They selected the pigs, the smartest ones, as their rulers.

Then they cast some rules in stone. Ten rules if I remember correctly.

The last one being 'All animals are equal'.

As days went by, the pigs gave themselves more and more privileges while capping benefits on the rest of the animals.

Towards the end of the story, there was another line added to the last rule: All animals are equal. But some animals are MORE equal than the others.

When I was studying as a 15-year-old, I didn't think this scenario could apply to a democracy like Singapore, or any Southeast Asian country. Marxism and Communism seemed so far away.

Strangely, as I age, this book seems more and more apt, and relevant to today's world.

The next thing I am disturbed by is the observation that many people actually think that the paycut is injustified, or too much for the party to bear.

Their pay and bonuses for a year is probably enough to last most of us a lifetime.

How can anyone complain that the leaders' paycut is not justified? It baffles me.

And this is just the basic pay. We haven't factored in their directorship fees, allowances and other monetary benefits and rewards for their great sacrifice in serving the nation.

I find it laughable that some people actually said that other country leaders have their private jets and other luxuries that are not declared. How transparent is the salary package - all in all - remains a question to me. I haven't heard of Obama or Donald Tsang or other leaders receiving directorship fees either.

As for other leaders writing books to generate income, I think Popular Bookstore is selling books by a local political figure. On the forefront of shelves too.

I am surprised at how fiercely some of these supporters are. They tell you that you are ignorant, and that if you cut their pay, we are going to have an inferior government, the government will not be effective, and that Singapore owes its success to them, totally.

As if Singapore is made up of them alone.

For some reason, I feel sad that people think that way.

When a child does well, or gets into a good class the next year, I never for once think it's the teacher who sends the child there. I always believe that it's the child who works hard enough to get there. By saying that Singapore will not be where it is today if not for a group of people, you are discounting the fact that Singaporeans are a hardworking, competitive lot.

Another thing that disturbs me:

Most of our salaries are compared to other countries' employees in the same field, and - I am not sure about other fields, but mine seems to be pegged at a lower rate compared to some comparable countries, for the work we do and the hours we commit.

For the same yardstick, why isn't the leaders' pay be compared and pegged to, at a lower rate, other countries' leaders?

Why should a city-state, one of the smallest countries in the world, have the highest-paid leaders?

Why is their pay compared to the top earners in Singapore? Some people have mentioned Jet Li and Gong Li. I hope the review committee did not include the hollywood movie stars in the 'top earners' range. These two stars put in alot of hardwork for years and made tremendous sacrifices, including personal ones, to get to where they are today. They started out with little. Did the leaders start out with little too? Perhaps they did. Hey, there are students who work for pocket money in the holidays, you know? The stars have talents and good looks for all to see to receive worldwide accolades and recognition. Have the leaders proven themselves on a worldwide basis too? Perhaps they have, just that the ignorant me doesn't know it.

Perhaps it is the lack of transparency in the salary package that leaves people like me skeptical with the pay review.