Tuesday, December 10, 2013

The President and Political Appointees Should Return Their Year End Bonuses

The President and Political Appointees Should Return Their Year End Bonuses
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
December 11, 2013


Summary: Legislators only know how to point the finger at others. Let us examine their performance and cost. Shouldn't they engage in a little soul searching of their own? Many bills remain frozen in the legislature. Others pander to populist sentiment. Can legislators answer to the taxpayers for the quality and quantity of their legislation?

Full text below:

The economy will not grow by 2% this year. It will not grow by 3% next year. Across the board price increases and food safety crises have left the public anxious. Public resentment is not hard to imagine. A number of legislators have called for the firing of cabinet ministers and the cancellation of year end bonuses, especially for those ministers responsible for fiscal and economic affairs. This may give some people a little temporary satisfaction. It may enable some legislators to make headlines. It may make for a good show. But such humiliations do do more than cut these ministers' incomes. They also undermine the morale and dignity of the ministers and their subordinates. They may even undermine fairness within the cabinet system. If ministers responsible for the economy fail to perform, are they the only ones who ought to be reprimanded?

The purpose of cutting official salaries is not to "decapitate" them. Cutting salaries has two serious implications. First, the economic environment is poor. People's incomes have stagnated. Officials feel their pain. They are willing to cut their salaries. After all, their salaries come out of the taxpayers' pockets. Salaries for the general public are not expected to increase, and may even decrease. Official salaries being cut, or year-end bonuses being withheld, is only natural.

Secondly, salary cuts let those in office know that their performance was unsatisfactory, due either to insufficient effort, or despite their best efforts. Salary cuts are a way to express repentance.

Whether the former or the latter, it is important to increase government responsiveness. Key government officials must seize the initiative. In May 2012, Osaka Mayor Toru Hashimoto made a suggestion during his election campaign. Salaries for civil servants come from taxes paid by the public. Civil service salary levels must never be higher than those in the private sector. If elected mayor, he promised to make the wages of city officials commensurate with those of corporate employees. After taking office, Toru Hashimoto cut salaries by one third. Osaka municipal government and municipal labor union negotiations led to a phased salary reduction plan.

Following the 3/11 earthquake, financial resources were required for reconstruction. In February 2012, the Japanese government proposed a national civil service wage bill. From April 2012 to March 2014, the average wage for all public servants was cut by 7.8%.

In 2008, the global economy slowed. The Singaporean government cut pay for the Prime Minister, Ministers, and high-level civil servants for the next year, by 11 to 19 percent, so they would share the public's pain. At the time, some elected representatives on Taiwan demanded that political appointees emulate Singapore, and take the lead by cutting their own pay. But some cabinet ministers felt that the payment methods for Taiwan and Singapore were different. The same rules were not applicable here. Singapore pays cabinet ministers the same amount as private sector CEOs. Salaries for officials on Taiwan are far lower. There is much less room for cuts.

This is reasonable. But lest we forget, different countries have different per capita incomes. Are salaries for government officials high or low? One cannot simply make comparisons between one country and another. One must also make comparison within any given country. In other words, one must compare net incomes, including various allowances, against the private sector and the general public. Secondly, suppose salaries for high-level government officials or civil servants are made commensurate with those in private enterprise. Their compensation must also be linked to their performance, to Key Performance Indicators (KPI). When the KPI is high, they receive pay increases. When the KPI slips, their pay must be cut accordingly. Similarly, lawmakers' salaries should be based on legislative performance. They should be commensurate with the private sector and the general public.

Recently some have proposed that ministers should be paid according to the "misery index," adjusted in accordance with the unemployment rate and inflation rate. This may be emotionalistic, but it is not without some basis. According to DGBAS statistics, Taiwan's latest misery index is higher than those of neighboring South Korea and Singapore. Don't even mention average salaries. Salaries on Taiwan have not increased in 16 years.

Economic growth has been less than expected. Legislators have decided to cut CEPD Kuan Chung-min's year-end bonus by half. The other half has been frozen on a probationary basis. It will be unfrozen based on Taiwan's future economic performance.

The CEPD is responsible for the overall planning of the economy. Its performance has been poor. Naturally, the chairman is responsible. But the selective pay cuts proposed by elected representatives is not a good policy. Moreover, when it comes to responsibility, the president and the premier are national leaders. As the CEOs of the nation, shouldn't they bear even more responsibility?

The year is about to end. But year-end bonuses in the private sector have been disappointing. According a Job Bank survey they have hit a four year low. Public sentiment is not hard to imagine. High ranking government officials must acknowledge these realities. What are they thinking, and what will they do?

Legislators only know how to point the finger at others. Let us examine their performance and cost. Shouldn't they engage in a little soul searching of their own? Many bills remain frozen in the legislature. Others pander to populist sentiment. Can legislators answer to the taxpayers for the quality and quantity of their legislation?

社論-總統與政務官應退回年終獎金
稍後再讀
中國時報 本報訊 2013年12月11日 04:09

今年經濟成長率確定保2不成,明年也無法保3,然百物齊漲加上食安造成人心不安,民意怨氣沖天可想而知,部分立委因而要求刪減閣員、尤其是財經相關部會首長的年終獎金。這或可一時大快人心,讓立委攻占不少媒體版面,頗有快意江湖之色;但這種羞辱的方式,刪減的不只是相關部會首長的收入,也同時打擊了部會首長乃至於其所領導團隊的士氣與尊嚴,甚至傷害了內閣部會的公平性。試問,經濟表現不如人意,需要負責的只是財經部會首長嗎?

削減官員薪資的目的絕非「梟首示眾」,應有兩個深刻的意涵,一是在整體大環境不佳的情況下,人民的收入沒有成長,官員們苦民所苦,願意減收俸祿,畢竟「爾俸爾祿乃民脂民膏」,當人民的薪資收入普遍因經濟成長未如預期而無法增加、甚至減少時,官員薪資的供給也會減少,減薪或至少減年終獎金,本是理所當然。

其次,藉減薪讓為政者知道是因為自己不夠努力或者即使「自認」已經很努力了,但成績就是不理想,因此以減薪表達自我惕勵與懺悔之意。

無論是前者還是後者,重要的是應該由行政體系自發性提出,關鍵在政府官員主動且甘心願意。2012年5月大阪市長橋下徹在競選時提出,公務員的薪資來自人民的納稅錢,公務員的薪資水平如果比企業高,是毫無道理的事,如果當選市長,會讓市府職員的工資比照一般企業員工。橋下徹上任後,本人先行減薪1/3,大阪市政府與市勞動組合工會交涉後也分階段進行削減計畫。

311大地震後,為尋找重建工程所需財源,日本政府在2012年2月提出國家公務員減薪法案,從2012年4月到2014年3月,對所有國家公務員平均減薪7.8%。

2008年景氣低迷衝擊全球,新加坡政府決定總理、部長及高階公務員在隔年將減薪11%至19%,以共體時艱;當時台灣也有民意代表要求政務官向新加坡學習,帶頭減薪,但有閣員認為台星兩地政務官的給薪制度不同,難以比照辦理。新加坡是依民間企業的CEO(執行長)給薪,而台灣官員的薪水低太多了,意思是削減的空間十分有限。

此言不能說無理,但是別忘了,各國平均國民所得不同,政府官員的薪資究竟是高還是低,不只是要有國與國之間的橫向比較,更應該要有該國內的縱向比較,也就是說,其總收入(含各項津貼)與一般任職於民間企業者相較如何。其次,若是政務官或者高階公務人員的薪資比照民間企業,那麼其薪資報酬是必須與經營績效(KPI,Key Performance Indicators,關鍵業績指標)連動的,也就是說,當KPI高的時候可以加薪,一旦KPI滑落收入自然就減少了。同理,立法委員也要看立法績效,縱向與一般任職於民間企業者比照敘薪也。

近日坊間有人倡議閣員薪水應該隨著「痛苦指數」(失業率加物價上漲率)浮動調整,此說雖帶有情緒,但也並非全無道理。根據主計處統計資料顯示,台灣最新的痛苦指數較之鄰國南韓與新加坡都來得高;至於平均薪資水準那就更不用講了,16年薪水沒漲的台灣是比都沒得比的。

因為經濟成長不如預期,立委決定刪減經建會主委管中閔的年終獎金一半,另一半則凍結「留校察看」,依未來台灣經濟表現再決定是否「解凍」。

經建會負責整體經濟規畫,經濟表現差,主委自是責無旁貸,但是民代這種個別式的選擇刪減,終非良策;況且說到負責,做為國家領導人的總統與國家CEO的閣揆豈不是更應該要負責嗎?

年終將屆,但企業員工一年一度最期待的年終獎金卻不如人意,據人力銀行的調查,將創下4年最低,人民心情之悶可想而知,此情此景,政府高官必然看在眼理,有何感想又有何作為呢?

回頭再來看只知檢討別人的立法諸公,攤開其立法績效與成本,是不是更該自我減俸。今天不少法案不是躺在立院就是民粹修法,立法的質與量對納稅人交代得過去嗎?

No comments: