I’m quite appalled by all the senseless attacks directed at the civil service on internet forums, after the media reported that the civil service would cut pay : see the Channel NewsAsia article here.

It’s really a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.  If the civil service didn’t decide on pay cuts, people would have complained.  Now that the civil service has decided on pay cuts, people are complaining that the cuts don’t go far enough, that ministers and top civil service officers should forgo their salaries entirely, that it is possible for top officers to survive on a fraction of their salary, etc.

I deeply sympathise with my former colleagues. 

This economic downturn is largely caused by external factors beyond the control of the Government / civil service.  Furthermore, unlike a regular business which winds down in bad times, the business of government goes on even in bad times — and I would add that public officers often have to work harder when the economy is doing badly because they have to devise and implement new policies to cushion the impact of the downturn on local businesses and the man-in-the-street, and because the ministries would be loathe to add to their headcount even if everyone is overworked.  A couple of years ago the civil service (very stupidly I think) implemented an across-the-board freeze on hiring because of the Asian economic crisis, and I noticed that since that time the average working hours for public officers (at least in the Ministry of Health) shot through the roof (I used to have to regularly work from home, from about 10 pm onwards till past midnight).  Therefore, I don’t see why public officers should generally be penalised by a pay cut.

By the above, I am not saying that our public officers are perfect, that all public officers deserve what they are currently paid, or that the civil service has no fat to trim.  I think the civil service can cut back its expenditure on useless feel-good, pat-on-the-back projects such as balanced scorecards, etc. which attempt to create a more focused and innovative civil service but which, I think, only needlessly kill trees, and generate more work for the hapless lowly public officer and more income for consultants.  And of course, all those public officers who happily drive these useless projects — especially the superscalers — should either be redeployed to do real work or axed (and here I freely admit that I am making this comment because of some very unhappy personal experiences with senior public officers who have lived a good part of their civil service life in la-la land).

In fact, one of the few justifications that I can see for this pay cut (though I am not sure if it was one of the planning considerations) is that it serves as a reminder to public officers — especially those from upper-middle / upper income backgrounds, and I believe that a fair number of officers who occupy the upper rungs of the civil service do hail from that privileged background — that there are many men-in-the-street who would suffer quite badly in this economic downturn, and that they cannot go about their usual duties and devise / implement their usual policies, or trot about in la-la land, without consideration for the man-in-the-street.

But I think those calls for public officers to forgo their salaries entirely, and other similarly extreme suggestions, are total nonsense.  Sure, a public officer who earns $300,000 a year can probably survive on a tenth of that salary.  But does anyone seriously think that, by paying only $30,000 annually to our more competent public officers, you can get sound government ?  The civil service is already imperfect as it is.  Staffing it with even less competent officers who are prepared to accept lower pay (for lack of ability to secure a better job) is not a viable solution.

As for me, I’m just glad to have left the civil service, and thankful to be blessed with a job which appears fairly secure for now.

Having looked at the labour laws of several developing countries in my new job, I must profess a certain admiration for how Singapore (and it’s Government) is handling the current economic crisis.

Unlike many other countries in the region, Singapore’s labour laws are very pro-business.  There is no minimum wage legislation, strikes are possible to organise but highly regulated (to the extent that we have not seen one for decades), and there are very few restrictions on the hiring and firing of employees.  Worker interests are promoted through the voluntary cooperation of employers.

To protect worker interests in this economic downturn, therefore, the Government is not resorting to legislation to protect jobs or ensure minimum wages, but appealing that businesses terminate employees only as a last resort.  Some of its suggestions in lieu of termination include reducing salaries (including those of senior managers), coupled with the introduction of shorter work weeks and / or sending excess staff for training in preparation for an improvement in the economic situation.  At a more concrete level, it is looking into the possibility of loans and grants to help struggling businesses survive the downturn.

Labour Chief Lim Swee Say summed this up as follows : "instead of focusing on cutting jobs to save costs, we focus our energy, our efforts on cutting costs to save jobs. This is the way to ensure that we will be able to achieve not only the right outcome for businesses, but at the same time, a good outcome for workers".

If our media is to be believed, this seems to have worked out reasonably well so far, with top executives from several businesses publicly declaring that they will voluntarily accept lower salaries / bonuses to save the jobs of their employees.  The proof, of course, will be in how these businesses react when the economy hits rock bottom.

In contrast, I’ve found that many developing countries have pro-worker legislation which guarantee its workers rather generous rights, such that minimum wages, lifetime employment, a right to strike, and termination benefits.  Interestingly, although these countries are resource rich, and have a relatively well-educated population and low labour costs, many MNCs have decided against making substantial investments in these countries because the benefits just do not outweigh the risks and undertainties arising from these pro-worker laws.  The workers are "happy" to think that their rights are safeguarded under law, but the reality is that they are the real losers in all this pro-labour posturing.

About a week ago, I was out of Singapore again, this time in Ho Chi Minh city.

The city turned out to be a lot more organised than I had expected (so ignorant, I am).

Though there remain the swarms of motorcycles — apparently there are about 350,000 on the street at any one time and a total of about 2 million — which make the streets sometimes seem like a scene out of the Clone Wars.  Imagine the day that every other Vietnamese is rich enough to own a car … the horror !

Joyce and Jed also came along for this trip.

Jed turned three today, and in the past three days —  beginning Saturday — we’ve celebrated his birthday five times, which has made him a very happy boy.

Joyce asked the other day if we should wean Jed off the milk bottle — Jed still drinks milk from a bottle at home — and I said that we should just leave this harmless (and rather adorable) habit be.  When Jed finally stops drinking from the bottle, we won’t be able to turn the clock back and have our baby drinking from the bottle again.  That part of his life will be gone forever, and all we will have are vague memories of this.

In the past year, Jed has grown so much, so quickly.  He surprises us almost everyday with a new word or song or skill — like putting his pants on by himself, asking to go to the toilet, refusing to wear diapers, pointing out individual characters in the alphabet and colours (skills that we thought he would not figure out till much later, given his seeming lack of interest), counting, asking to pray for a family member who is sick, narrating the day’s events before going to sleep, etc.  Rapidly, Jed is losing those characteristics which made him a baby, and transforming into a boy.

Or "big boy", as Jed likes to say of himself.