Official Salaries: Do Not Put the Cart Before the Horse

Official Salaries: Do Not Put the Cart Before the Horse
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
October 29, 2010

Yesterday the Control Yuan held a press conference. Control Yuan Members Chao Yung-yao and Ko Yung-kuang pointed out that the annual salary of the Director of the Department of Health, National Health Research Institute was 8.41 million NT. The annual salary of the President of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Industrial Technology Research Institute, was 7.8 million NT. Both were higher than the 6.24 million NT annual salary of the President of the Republic of China. The Control Yuan pointed out that these foundations had no objective salary scale, and that their salaries were much too high. The Control Yuan said the Executive Yuan had failed to properly supervise and manage them, therefore the Control Yuan should address this oversight.

The Control Yuan's corrective move is consistent with the public's desire to "stick it to the fat cats." Legislators have demanded answers. Pundits have raised a stink. Fat cat salaries have become a hot issue. The Control Yuan has officially intervened. It appears the Executive Yuan has no choice but to deal with the problem. But we do not approve of the Control Yuan's populist logic vis a vis salary evalution. We do not think the salaries government agencies provide these foundations should be dealt with in such a crude manner.

First let's address their logic. Why must the salary of the Director of the Industrial Technology Research Institute or the Director of the National Institute of Health be lower than that of the president or a ministry head? Control Yuan members explained their reasoning during their press conference. "Who has a busier schedule? The Minister of Economic Affairs, or the Chairman of the Industrial Research Institute?" The implication was that salaries should be directly related to how busy the individual is. Because ministry heads are busier than the chairmen of research institutes, therefore ministry heads' salaries ought to be higher. Based on the same logic, the president must attend to hundreds of matters each day, therefore his salary ought to be the highest of all. But this reasoning is utterly inconsistent with the basic principles of personnel management.

Economic theory tells us that the salary a person receives, depends on his economic contribution. Textbooks refer to this as their "productivity." Highly productive people receive high salaries. Less productive people receive lower salaries. Busy high officials are not necessarily economically productive. They are likely to be busy with ribbon-cutting ceremonies, busy giving speeches, busy attending weddings and funerals, and busy sucking up to their superiors. They may be busy dealing with unending, pointless issues that legislators have raised. These ministry heads run about like chickens with their heads cut off. What reason do we have to reward them with high salaries?

By contrast, when Morris Chang, the Director of the Industrial Technology Research Institute, planned and promoted Taiwan's semiconductor industry, he may have been in his office all day, poring through technical data. He may have been recruiting talent. He may or may not have been all that busy. But his contribution to our economy was enormous. What's wrong with paying him a higher salary? If every president of the Industrial Research Institute was comparable to Morris Chang, the taxpayers would be ahead even if they paid them five or ten times as much as the president. What would be wrong with that? The first mistake the Control Yuan members made was to compare the salaries of foundation heads with ministry heads. Their second mistake was to correlate their salaries to how busy they were. What right to they have to "correct" the Executive Yuan?

Secondly, our legislators and Control Yuan members, in criticizing the salaries received by certain people, have ignored the underlying cause. With hindsight, a high-paying job can be a featherbed for incompetents. But high-paying jobs can also attract highly capable talent. Even if we believe the current job holder does not deerve the salary he is being paid, that does not mean the government should reduce the salary for the job as such. If the Republic of China hopes to once again achieve new heights of industrial achievement, akin to those once pioneered by the ICT industries, we must not cut salaries. On the contrary, we must increase salaries for these industries. Only then can be attract the next batch of Morris Changs.

If the government allows itself to be corrected by the Control Yuan, and reduces the salaries of the President of the National Institute of Health in half, then the government will no longer be able to attract first-rate talent. We believe the salary of the President of the Industrial Technology Research Institute should not be reduced. We believe the salaries of senior government officials are on the low side. Everyone on Taiwan wants to emulate Singapore, but not when it comes to salaries for ministry heads. Singapore's ministry heads receive annual salaries amounting to 40 million NT, approximatly 18 times the salary of ROC ministry heads. It is precisely because public officials receive such excellent treatment, that Singapore is able to attract the best people to work in its government.

Government ministries are the entities that manage private enterprises. The ability of managers is supposed to be superior to the ability of those being managed. That is the only way management can work. But the situation is exactly the opposite on Taiwan. The salary of the Chairman of the FSC is far less than the salary for the general manager of any financial conglomerate. Is it necessary to ask how an individual of ability will decide when choosing between a public sector job, or a private sector job in the financial sector? The Minister of Economic Affairs is paid far less than the executive vice president of a computer company. Is anyone who understands the industry going to want to enter government service? It is precisely because the salaries of ministry heads on Taiwan are too low, that legislators and Control Yuan members do not respect them. Our society is unable to recruit competent people to become ministry heads.

The Control Yuan is not thinking about increasing the benefits for ministry heads in order to attract talent. Instead, it is using low salaries as a reference point, in the hope of cutting the salaries of the heads of the Industrial Research Institute and the National Institutes of Health. This is truly astounding. It is nothing less than putting the cart before the horse.

討論職位薪水，不要本末倒置
【聯合報╱社論】 2010.10.29

監察院日前召開記者會，監委趙榮耀與葛永光均指出，衛生署所屬國家衛生研究院院長的薪水每年841萬、經濟部所屬「工業技術研究院」院長的薪水780萬，都比總統年薪624萬還高。監委指出，這些財團法人薪資待遇漫無標準，且有過高現象，而行政院未能監督管理，監察院遂應提出糾正。

這一次監察院的糾正案，可以說是配合社會上「打肥貓」的運動而提出。立委質詢、名嘴吵鬧肥貓議題已是喧騰熱鬧，如今監察院又正式提糾正案，看樣子行政院非要處理不可。但是坦白說，我們並不贊成監委如此民粹式的比薪邏輯，也不認為部會所屬財團法人的薪水，該這樣粗糙地處理。

首先要談的是邏輯問題。工研院或國衛院院長的薪水，為什麼一定得比總統或部長低？監委在記者會上所提的理由是：「是經濟部長忙還是工研院董事長忙？」言下之意薪水是該與忙碌程度成正比的。由於部長比工研院長忙，所以部長的薪水應該高一些。依照同樣的推理，總統日理萬機，所以他的薪水該最高。但是這樣的邏輯完全不合薪給與人事管理的基本原理。

經濟學的理論告訴我們，一個人薪資的多寡，要看他的貢獻（教科書上稱作「生產力」）大小；生產力高的人薪水高，生產力低的人薪資低。要注意的是，工作忙碌的大官未必有什麼生產力，很可能是忙碌於剪綵、致辭、紅白帖、拍馬屁，以及應付立委監委沒完沒了的調查等不營養的事。若是這種沒頭蒼蠅式的忙碌，有什麼理由領高薪？

相反的，當年工研院院長張忠謀規畫構思推動台灣的半導體產業，說不定整天在辦公室讀資料、募人才，說忙未必，但是對台灣經濟貢獻卻極大，台灣付他高一點的薪水又有什麼不對？若是工研院每一任的院長都能找到像張忠謀這一級的A咖，就算薪水是總統的五倍十倍，台灣人民也是賺到了，又有什麼不可以？監察委員把財團法人首長的薪水與部長比是第一個錯誤，再將薪水與忙碌程度比是第二個錯誤，又憑什麼去糾正行政院呢？

其次，我們的立委、監委批評若干職位的薪水，都忽略其背後的因果推理。一個高薪職位事後看來有可能養了個無能廢人，但事前看來高薪卻有機會吸引到能力極強的幹才。即使我們認為現任的在位者都不夠資格領那份薪水，但這卻並不表示國家該據此而做減薪的思考。如果台灣還期盼再創產業高峰、再開拓類似當年ICT產業的輝煌前景，則我們就不但不該砍薪，還該把與這些產業相關若干職位的薪水拉高，如此才有可能找到下一批的張忠謀。

假若政府真的接受監察院的糾正，將國衛院院長等職位的薪水減半，則台灣就可能再也請不到一流的人才返國加入。反過來說，此處主張不應扣減工研院院長的薪水，但也同時認為我國高層政府首長的薪給偏低。台灣什麼都想學新加坡，偏偏對部會首長的薪水不肯學。星國部長年薪約四千萬台幣，大約是台灣部長年薪的十八倍。正由於該國公職人員待遇極佳，遂能吸引最好的人才去政府工作。

政府部會是管理民間企業的單位，而管理者的能力照理說要高於被管理者，這樣管理才會上軌道。但台灣的情形卻剛好相反；金管會主委的薪資遠不如任何一家金控業者的總經理，請問有能力的幹才在公職與私人金融主管之間，會選哪一邊？經濟部長薪水遠不及電腦公司的執行副總，請問懂產業的人才誰要去政府服務？正因為台灣部長的薪水太低、立委監委對部長太不尊重，我們的社會就找不到真正能幹的人去做部長。

如今，監委們不思為部會首長增加待遇以吸引幹才，卻以這偏低的待遇為標竿，想要刪減工研院與國衛院等其他具有潛在貢獻職位的薪水，令人驚異。本末倒置，斯之謂也。