REPORT OF CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES COMMISSION OF SINGAPORE, 1967 (Statement by the Minister for Finance

Mr Speaker: Order. Further to the statement by the Minister for Finance yesterday, I will now take questions for answers.

Mr N. Govindasamy (Telok Blangah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to seek some clarification in respect of employees who opt to be on the existing salary scales and draw variable allowance personal to themselves. Will the Government give an assurance that such variable allowance will not be altered in any manner whatsoever to the prejudice of the employee who has so opted for as long as he remains in Government service?

The Minister for Finance (Dr Goh Keng Swee): Sir, I cannot give any assurance that the salary scales will never be changed to the detriment of the officers for all time. But I can give the assurance that they will remain substantially in their present form unless there is another major exercise in salary revision downwards. In other words, if there is no general revision of civil service salary scales downwards, those who opt to remain on salary scales personal to themselves with the retention of the variable allowances will continue to receive them.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise two questions. Firstly, in his Ministerial statement yesterday, the Finance Minister said that the Government propose to introduce two Superscale posts, 'A' and 'B' into the civil service. In the case of Superscale 'B', the salary would be $2,700 a month, and Super-scale 'A' $3,000 a month. This salary is more than a Minister's salary, which is only $2,500 a month. Generally speaking, the responsibilities of a Minister are greater than those of a Permanent Secretary. If that is the case, I wish to ask the Minister for Finance, if the pay of Ministers' pay will be correspondingly increased.

I warmly welcome Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the Salaries Commission in respect of Division IV employees. In the Primary Production Division there are about 90 employees. I wish to ask the Minister if these employees are covered by the Report. If they are not, I would ask him whether he would consider extending the implemented recommendations to cover these employees.

Mr Speaker: Dr Goh Keng Swee, may I suggest that you answer Mr Teong Eng Siong's first question first, so that if there are any questions from other Members on the same matter you can take them in sequence before going to his second question on employees in the Primary Production Department.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, Ministers' salaries will not be revised in this exercise.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Sir, I have a series of questions to ask.

Mr Speaker: Do your questions arise out of Mr Teong's first question?

Mr N. Govindasamy: No, Sir, they arise out of my first question.

Mr Speaker: In that case, I will let the Minister answer Mr Teong's second question and I will come back to you. Dr Goh.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Commission did not deal with the salaries of people who administer injections to chickens, whatever they are called. The posts of these people are temporary. I think they carry a salary of $100 a month and are probably held part-time by farmers. It would not be true to say that there is a general upward revision of Division IV salary scales. What has happened is that the number of salary scales has been reduced, with the result that some people benefit by having a longer salary scale so that they will continue to enjoy more increments. It does not mean that they get an immediate increase in pay.

Since the temporary inoculators are not on any salary scale but receive a fixed salary, they do not enjoy the benefit of a better salary scheme. I hope I have made myself clear. There is no way of bringing them in because the Commission did not recommend a general increase.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Will the promotion prospects of an employee who opts to remain in the present salary scale be prejudiced merely because he has so opted?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: His promotion prospects will not be prejudiced.

Mr Lee Teck Him (Ulu Pandan): (In Mandarin): Sir, the Minister for Finance yesterday dealt with the recommendations of the Salaries Commission in respect of the increase in salaries of Division I and Superscale posts. In my view, these Superscale officers already have enough to live well and Government should more properly look after the interest of the lower-income groups. In the case of the latter, there should be some increase in salary. This is only right and proper because we in Singapore practise parliamentary democracy. We must respect these people who are not so well off. Those officers who are getting $2,000 or $3,000 a month already have enough. Many people sleep by the roadside and many do not have enough to eat.

How can these top civil servants ask for more pay? We Members of Parliament get only $500 a month each and we have to contribute to the party funds. How can we live on this small pay? Of course, I too want to ask for a pay rise and hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, Members of Parliament do not get salaries or pay. They get an allowance which is meant to help them out by way of transport expenses and for work in the constituencies. Again, there is no question of increase of salaries to Members of Parliament.

As regards the suggestion that Super-scale officers are overpaid, I completely disagree with the Member for Ulu Pandan. Let me give him an example of how pay in the top level of the civil service compares with pay in commercial firms. A managing director of a reasonably prosperous company in Singapore may get a total pay of $10,000 per month or more, which is four times what the Permanent Secretary of a Ministry is getting. The work of the Permanent Secretaries is more onerous and more responsible. To say that they are overpaid when they get only one-quarter of the pay of people of equivalent ability in the private sector is, I think, completely misleading.

The increases which we are recommending for the top posts in the civil service, in my view, are in themselves inadequate to do justice to the situation. But we expect that people will make a career in the civil service not entirely for the purpose of making money and becoming rich.

Mr Ho See Beng (Bras Basah): Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I want to make it clear that I do not grudge Government's proposal to increase the salaries of Superscale officers. My point is that at this juncture when the Government is asking the private sector to make a big sacrifice, is it wise for the Government to increase the salaries of those who are well provided?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If we want to attract and retain talent in the civil service, this is what we must do. It is, therefore, a very wise move, in my view.

Mr Ho See Beng: Sir, I agree that we need talent. But I think these talented people should also be considerate. When the country is in difficulties, they should make sacrifices. Just because they are talented, they should not get everything.

An hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr Seah Mui Kok (Bukit Ho Swee): Sir, does the Government propose to accept the recommendation of the Commission in paragraph 588* of its Report on the restoration of commuted

• Paragraph 588 reads as follows:

'We recommend the Treasury's proposal for consideration' pension to a pensioner who outlives the period in respect of which his pension was commuted, i.e., 12½ years?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The answer is "yes".

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, since Government accepts a good proportion of the recommendations of the Salaries Commission, it means that more expenditure will have to be incurred each year. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the Minister for Finance can enlighten the House on how much the additional recurrent expenditure will be for each year.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If we had accepted all the recommendations of the Salaries Commission, the additional cost to Government would be of the order of $6.8 million a year. We have not accepted the recommendation in respect of a general increase in Division I salary scales and in Superscale. This recommendation would cost $1.8 million. Therefore, we are left with an increase of $5 million a year.

Then we have decided to allow married women, bachelors and married women without children to convert to the new salary scales without restrictions arising out of their marital status. This costs another $¼ million. So the total additional sum is $5¼ million a year.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, does it mean that the taxpayers will have to dig deeper into their pockets if Government pays $5¬ million more each year?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, since we do not print our notes as some countries do, I am afraid that is the case.

Mr Ng Yeow Chong (Mountbatten): Sir, the Hon. Minister for Finance has mentioned just now that one company pays its director $10,000 a month as director's fees. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to which company pays $10,000 a month as director's fees?

My second question is: are civil servants who are serving on the boards of public companies entitled to director's fees?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I was not referring to directors or members of the board of directors. I was referring to the chief executive of companies and they are usually known as "managing directors". For a managing director of a big firm in Singapore to get a pay of $10,000 a month is by no means unusual.

Civil servants who are members of the boards of directors of companies in which either the Government or the Economic Development Board has a share of equity, do receive director's fees. They do retain these fees if they are paid out because of the contribution that they make to the firm. I may say that these director's fees are in most cases very small. In some cases, the firms, being new ones, do not pay any director's fees.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, does the Government's acceptance of the recommendation of the Salaries Commission for a unified salary scale for non-graduate trained teachers imply that the Government also accepts the Commission's recommendation in paragraph 202* of its Report for a lower commencing salary for technical teachers

• Paragraph 202 reads as follows:

'We recommend the following points of entry on the basic Timescale for Trained Teachers, Non-Graduates :- (i) Technical $295 (ii) School Certificate $315 (iii) Higher School Certificate, Craft, Domestic Science and Physical Education $385 (iv) Technician Diploma - we recommend that posts of Teachers, Non-Graduates. (Technician Diploma) should be included in the Review which we recommend for all Technical Grades in the Civil Service mentioned in paragraph 323. Meanwhile, present incumbents of the posts should be emplaced on Scale 18A in Division III $580x20-660/725x20-805/830x30-980.' as compared with academic teachers? If that is the case, does the Government not consider the acceptance of such a recommendation incompatible with its avowed policy of promoting technical and vocational education rather than purely academic education?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think this point was raised in a letter to the newspapers this morning. This looks to me to be an oversight on the part of the Salaries Commission. For reasons set out by the Member for Telok Blangah, technical teachers will convert on no less favourable terms than other grades of teachers.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Sir, yesterday the Minister mentioned promotion exercises. I would like to know how frequently promotion exercises will be held so as to enable Division I officers to be promoted e.g, to Superscale C, B or A posts.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: It is the Public Service Commission which decides on the frequency of promotion exercises. Government can only propose to them that more frequent promotion exercises be carried out, but the decision rests with the Public Service Commission, it varies from Ministry to Ministry and from service to service. So far as the services under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Finance are concerned, it is mainly the Administrative Service. The last promotion exercise was held some 18 months ago and I think we should have one pretty soon. If possible, one would like to see annual exercises carried out. But the trouble may be the lack of suitable candidates.

So, subject to these reservations, I would say that we should carry out more frequent promotion exercises starting from now. I am afraid I cannot be more definite than that.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have come across a number of cases where senior civil servants have been acting for quite a long time. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that promotion exercises should be more frequent. I hope the time factor will be taken into consideration, that is, instead of a lapse of 18 months, let us have promotion exercises on a yearly basis so that we will not have senior officers acting for two or three years. If they are found to be unsuitable for promotion, another officer ought to be found to act with a view to finding the right man for the right place.

Mr Low Yong Nguan (Crawford): Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know from the Minister whether the Government is prepared to accept the suggestion of the Commission as contained in paragraph 227* of the Report regarding medical benefits to aided school teachers?

• Paragraph 227 reads as follows:

'We suggest that consideration should be given to the possibility of extending to Government-Aided Teaching Personnel the Medical Benefits applicable to Government School Teachers.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Yes, Sir, the Government accepts this recommendation.

Mr L. P. Rodrigo: Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Minister say whether the Government accepts the Commission's recommendation that all trained teachers, graduates and honours graduates, be emplaced on the Division I salary scale?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The Government accepts this recommendation.

Mr P. Govindaswamy (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two questions. Firstly, regarding the mode of salary conversion, I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the following: One officer, "A", who is married and another officer, "B", who is not married are now on the same basic salary. As officer "A" is married he draws a higher variable allowance and therefore his total emoluments are greater than those of officer "B". According to the Commission's mode of conversion, officer "A" will move to a higher step in the new salary scale.

Should officer "B" get married after the implementation of the recommendations of the Salaries Commission Report, he will still be on a lower step vis-a-vis officer "A". How does the Minister intend to correct this?

Secondly, may I know the reason why the date of implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Salaries Commission is 1st January, 1969?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I thought I made it clear in my speech yesterday that we do not accept the Commission's recommendation in respect of conversion, having a difference of conversion between the married and unmarried officers. They will all convert on the same basis, that is, the bachelor officer will convert in the same way as the married officer. In effect, he will get an increase in total pay on this exercise costing the taxpayers a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Why is the date of implementation 1st January, 1969? If we regard our decisions as final and refuse to hear representations, we can probably implement it from 1st October, 1968. But we want to hear the views of unions, associations and other people and, therefore, we have to give them time to make their representations. It will probably be sometime in October when we can make up our minds. Therefore, it is necessary to allow another two or three months to pass and 1st January, 1969, seems to be a very convenient date.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the Government's proposal to create two new Superscale posts, that is 'A' and 'B', does it mean that in future, we will have a Permanent Secretary who will be placed in any one 'of these three Superscale grades, i.e., Superscale 'A', 'B' and 'C'? If it is the intention of the Government to create different grades of Permanent .Secretaries, does the Government propose to determine the grade of each Permanent Secretaryship on the basis of the importance of the Ministry to which the Permanent Secretary is attached, or on the basis of the personal merits of the holder of such a post?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Permanent Secretaries will be promoted on the basis of individual merits and not by reason of their holding of posts. Of course, I accept that this is a departure from the normal civil service practice. But, in effect, it will probably not make all that difference because obviously we have got to post the ablest of them in the most important positions.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, in our debate on the 1968 Estimates I noticed that we have various categories of Ambassadors and High Commissioners. Would all these come under one and the same category?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: I think the Salaries Commission makes no recommendation in this respect. I do not think I am called upon to make any comment on this subject.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, according to the Estimates, the Ambassadors and High Commissioners are placed under certain grades like 'E' and so forth. I think they do come into this?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: If they are paid on Grade 'E', then they will remain to be paid on Grade 'E'.

Mr Rodrigo: Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment Domestic Science teachers trained abroad and Physical Education Inspectors trained abroad are placed on various assorted scales. However, the Commission has made some recommendations on this. Will the Government accept the Commission's recommendation that these two categories of teachers be entered into the basic Timescale as recommended at the point of $385?

Mr Speaker: Mr Rodrigo, can you identify the paragraphs to which you refer?

Mr Rodrigo: The Salaries Commission Report - *paragraphs 214 and 216.

• The paragraphs read as follows:

'214. It was also represented to us that there is a great disparity in the salary scales at present paid to Domestic Science Teachers who received their training Overseas. Some are placed on the Honours Degree salary scale while others are placed on the Pass Degree salary scale. A number are on the Old Certificate Trained salary scale while others are on the New Certificate Trained salary scale. In paragraph 200 we have recommended a basic timescale of $295x20-335 / 385x20-505 /560x25 /660/ 750x35-925 (Scale 5 in Division II) for Trained Teachers, Non-Graduates and in paragraph 202 we have recommended that Domestic Science Teachers should enter the basic timescale at $385 per month.'

'216. A similar situation exists with regard to Assistant Specialist Inspectors (Physical Education) who received their training overseas. Some are placed on the Pass Degree salary scale while others are placed on the Old Certificate Trained salary scale. In paragraph 202 we have recommended that Teachers specialising in Physical Education should enter the basic time-scale for Trained Teachers, Non-Graduates at $385 per month.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Subject to any views from the Ministry of Education on this recommendation, my Ministry proposes to accept this recommendation.

Mr N. Govindasamy: Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the comment contained in paragraph 198+ of the Commission's Report, will the Government consider setting up another commission to inquire into the basic reorganisation of the structure of the Ministry of Education?

• Paragraph 198 reads as follows:

'A basic reorganisation of the structure of the Education Service as proposed by the Ministry of Education's Scheme would not be within our Terms of Reference, and although we make no specific recommendations with regard to this matter, we consider that the Scheme warrants further serious consideration.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, I think we had better get through the implementation of the recommendations of this Commission before we start on another one.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir, the pharmacists in this country are not particularly happy because they have not been classed as a professional group. Perhaps the Minister may be able to clarify this point?

Dr Goh Keng Swee: The responsibility of keeping everybody happy is not really mine. If the hon. Member can refer to the paragraph containing the recommendation of the Commission on this grade, perhaps I may be able to venture an opinion.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: It is on page 48, **paragraphs 141 and 142.

** The paragraphs read as follows:

'141. The Association in their representation proposed that Pharmacists should be' included in the Scheme of Service for Professional Officers. They proposed that Medical Officers, Dental Officers and Pharmaceutical Officers should all be emplaced on a, common Professional Timescale but Pharmaceutical Officers should enter the proposed Timescale at a lower point of entry. We have given consideration to this proposal but do not support the suggestion since we do not feel that a case was made out for giving Pharmaceutical Officers parity of treatment with Medical and Dental Officers and other officers in the profession, e.g., Legal, Engineering, Architecture, etc.

142. We recommend that Pharmacists should continue to be emplaced on the non-professional salary scale.'

Dr Goh Keng Swee: Sir, in paragraph 142 the Commission recommends that pharmacists should continue to be emplaced on the non-professional salary' scale. Therefore, I am afraid that is the recommendation which the Government will accept. It must be assumed that the officers concerned have made out a case as thoroughly as possible to the Salaries Commission, and if the finding is adverse, then that is that.

Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was hoping that the Minister may be able to clarify the position of pharmacists being on the "non-professional" salary scale, because in my opinion I think they are, in fact, professional men.

Dr Goh Keng Swee: This so-called "non-professional" salary scale is really a misnomer. It is something like the holy Roman Empire which is neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire. There are many professionals who are emplaced on this scale.