Ministerial Salaries Review debate continues...

Reflections on the salary debate

By Lawrence Wong, TODAY, 20 Jan 2012

After three days of debate on salaries for political office holders and allowances for Members of Parliament (MPs), I learnt more than I ever expected. But I also walked away with some troubling questions.

Honesty or hypocrisy?

The independent committee chaired by Mr Gerard Ee upheld three principles for determining salaries of political office holders: Competitive salary, ethos of sacrifice for public service and "clean wage".

Both the People's Action Party (PAP) and Workers' Party (WP) agreed on these principles.

But having accepted all three principles, the WP argued strongly that the committee should have listed "ethos of public service" before "competitive salaries" instead of after.

So I was surprised when the WP's alternative formula produced an answer quite similar to what the committee had recommended.

The WP alleged that the proposal to peg salaries to the 1,000 top income earners was "elitist". They counter-proposed an alternative formula, tied to the MX9 Superscale grade, which they described as "whole of government and people-up".

But the MX9 grade represents the top 1.2 per cent of the Civil Service and is also competitively benchmarked to private sector salaries.

And the WP multiplied the MX9 salary upwards to give the same salary level for ministers as proposed by the committee, hence targeting the top income earners as well. So in substance, surely the WP's alternative is just as "elitist"?

The PAP was upfront about designing a system that would not make it even harder for capable and committed people to come forward to serve.

The WP's proposal was not so different from what Mr Ee's committee had recommended, yet the WP MPs strenuously denied the similarity. I cannot help but wonder if the difference between the PAP and the WP is about honesty versus hypocrisy.

'Principled approach' or 'political opportunism'?

The WP has for many years championed linking political salaries to the poor. In 2006, it proposed making ministerial salaries 100 times the salary of the bottom 20 per cent.

In its General Election (GE) 2011 manifesto, the WP declared that ministers' pay should be "benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries".

At election rallies, WP candidates used the "million-dollar salaries" of ministers to whip up emotions against the government.

After the election, in Parliament, the WP proposed paying ministers around S$1 million per annum. This is exactly what the WP had attacked so fiercely in the GE.

I looked forward to hearing the WP MPs explain why they had changed their stand, a change that I considered a step forward. But, unfortunately, they never mentioned their past positions, much less explained their policy reversal.

Mr Gerald Giam even claimed that this had been the WP position in the GE. Party leaders Mr Low Thia Khiang and Ms Sylvia Lim remained silent throughout.

It is honourable and logical to change one's position as circumstances change and new information becomes available. I hope that is why the WP has changed its position on ministerial salaries.

But when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the public. This is what it means to be accountable and transparent.

Otherwise, how can voters be sure what to make of their future election promises and manifestos?

'Due diligence' or 'gross negligence'?

The WP MPs claimed that its benchmark, based on the MX9 salary grade, was representative of the general wage level of Singaporeans. When queried, they admitted they did not know that only very few senior civil servants were at this grade.

I found it disturbing that the WP had based its whole proposal on a salary benchmark that it was not familiar with and, furthermore, made sweeping, inaccurate statements about what this benchmark represented.

Basic research from easily available public information would have shown that the MX9 salary does not represent the typical wage level of Singaporeans. This is the basic level of care and due diligence that responsible parliamentarians ought to demonstrate.

Towards a First World Parliament?

Many had hoped for a First World Parliament after GE 2011. The three days of debate show that we have quite some way to go. It is not always easy or popular to take an honest and principled approach.

But Singaporeans expect no less, both from the ruling party and the opposition.

Lawrence Wong is writing in his capacity as Publicity and Publication Sub-Committee chairman of the PAP HQ Exco.

PAP: Why did Workers' Party change stand on pay?
Lawrence Wong posts note on website asking party to explain
The Straits Times, 21 Jan 2012

THE People's Action Party (PAP) has called on the Workers' Party (WP) to explain to the public its change of stance on ministerial salaries.

'This is what it means to be accountable and transparent,' said Mr Lawrence Wong, chairman of the PAP's publicity and publications sub-committee.

'Otherwise, how can voters be sure what to make of their future election promises and manifestos?'

In a note posted on the PAP's website yesterday, Mr Wong said that the WP had 'for many years championed linking political salaries to the poor'.

He wrote: 'In 2006, it proposed making ministerial salaries 100 times the salary of the bottom 20 per cent. In its GE 2011 manifesto, the WP declared that ministers' pay should be 'benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries'. At election rallies, WP candidates used the 'million-dollar salaries' of ministers to whip up emotions against the Government.

'After the election, in Parliament, the WP proposed paying ministers around $1 million per annum.'

And yet, this sum was 'exactly what the WP had attacked so fiercely in the general election', noted Mr Wong, who is also Minister of State for Education and Defence.

He added that he had looked forward to hearing the WP MPs explain their change, but 'they never mentioned their past positions, much less explain their policy reversal'.

Querying if the change was due to a 'principled approach' or 'political opportunism', he said: 'It is honourable and logical to change one's position as circumstances change and new information becomes available. I hope that is why WP has changed its position. But when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the public.'

In his note, Mr Wong also argued that although the WP slammed the recommendations of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries as 'elitist', its own recommendation to peg ministerial pay to the Superscale MX9 pay grade was 'just as elitist'.

The MX9 grade represents the top 1.2 per cent of civil servants and is competitively benchmarked to private- sector salaries, he noted.

A director at the grade earns around $11,000 a month, and the WP recom- mends that ministers be paid five times that, or $55,000 a month.

This is identical to what the review committee came up with after pegging ministers' pay to 60 per cent of the median income of the top 1,000 earners.

Mr Wong said the PAP was 'upfront' about establishing a wage system that would not deter the talented from leading Singapore. And while the WP's proposal 'was not so different', its MPs strenuously denied the similarity.

'I can't help but wonder if the difference between the PAP and the WP is about honesty versus hypocrisy,' he said.

Mr Wong, who is also an MP for West Coast GRC, also took umbrage with the WP's basing its formula on a benchmark that it was 'not familiar with'.

On Wednesday, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean asked WP's Mr Gerald Giam if he thought the MX9 was still representative of the civil service or the general wage level, as it had earlier claimed.

The Non-Constituency MP replied then that he had 'no choice but to accept' the MX9 formula, as the WP had not been privy to information on what it was.

Said Mr Wong: 'I found it disturbing that the WP had based its whole proposal on a salary benchmark that it was not familiar with, and furthermore, made sweeping inaccurate statements about what this benchmark represented.'

Research on public information would have shown that the MX9 salary does not represent typical wage levels, he said. 'I believe this is the basic level of care and due diligence that responsible parliamentarians ought to demonstrate.'

Concluding, Mr Wong cocked a salvo at the WP's election manifesto, Towards A First World Parliament, saying: 'The last three days of debate show that we still have quite some way to go.

'It is not always easy or popular to take an honest and principled approach. But Singaporeans expect no less, both from the ruling party and the opposition.'

The WP did not respond to The Straits Times' request for comments by press time.

WP clarifies Gerald Giam's remark in Parliament

By Tessa Wong, The Straits Times, 21 Jan 2012

THE Workers' Party (WP) has clarified a controversial remark its Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam made in Parliament this week about the formula used for its proposed ministerial salary framework.

Mr Giam had said that he did not know how the salary levels of MX9 (Superscale) civil servants - which the WP had used as its benchmark - were derived.

Yesterday, he said the WP knew this MX9 salary benchmark was pegged to private sector pay, but did not know the details of how it was pegged.

He made the point in an email reply when The Straits Times asked how the WP had done its research to produce its formula for political pay.

He said: 'We were aware that MX9 is the entry-level Superscale grade in the regular civil service, corresponding to an appointment of director in the regular civil service who is not in the elite Administrative Service.'

'We were also aware that MX9 grade salaries are linked to market conditions in the private sector.'

But the WP was 'not privy to the exact job and level in the private sector that MX9 grade is pegged to', he added.

In presenting its formula at the three-day parliamentary debate on political pay, the WP proposed giving an MP an allowance equivalent to the monthly salary of an MX9 civil servant, and that ministerial salaries be a multiple of an MP's pay.

Later, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean pointed out that MX9 civil servants are a small group of senior officers and their pay is pegged to those of people of similar seniority in the private sector.

Mr Giam responded by saying he had 'no choice but to accept' what DPM Teo said, and added: 'I do not know what... we are not privy to what the MX9 formula is.'

The WP came under fire for picking MX9 pay as the basis for its formula without first finding out what it entailed.

In his email, Mr Giam also explained why the WP had chosen the MX9 pay even though it knew it was pegged to that of high-income earners in the private sector.

He said the salary of an MX9 officer, estimated to be $11,000 a month, is about the same as the income of a household at the 80th percentile.

The Statistics Department confirmed that a household with a monthly income of $11,000 would fall around the 80th percentile, and said such a household could have more than one person working.

He also argued that the MX9 salary levels were lower than the salary benchmark used by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries, yet 'high enough to reflect the seniority and scope of responsibilities of an MP'.

The committee had pegged an entry-level minister's pay to 60 per cent of the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners.

Mr Giam said more than 10 people from the WP, including its eight MPs, had worked on the party's proposals since last September.

The team is believed to have consulted several individuals, including civil servants, but none were in the MX9 grade.

The WP also did not approach the Public Service Division, which oversees the employment of civil servants, for information. It used data available on the websites of government agencies and other public sources of information.

Political observers interviewed felt the way the WP defended its use of the MX9 benchmark showed an apparent lack of preparation.

Former Nominated MP Zulkifli Baharudin said that when going up against the Government, with its huge resources, the WP 'should expect that any counter arguments would be robustly debated'.

Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser from the National University of Singapore said the WP was short on the specifics of its proposals, as it seemed unaware of what MX9 is actually pegged to.

Still, its image is not likely to suffer unduly, as people know six out of the eight WP MPs are new to Parliament and are 'understandably on a learning curve', said political analyst Derek da Cunha.

Added Mr Baharudin: 'The public will be sympathetic as the WP is still seen as the underdog. But if they carry on like this and continue to appear unprepared, the public will not accept it.'

PAP: Further shift in Workers' Party's stance

Explanation on choice of salary benchmark differs from previous one: Lawrence Wong

By Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 22 Jan 2012

The People's Action Party (PAP) yesterday criticised the Workers' Party's (WP) clarifications on its stand on ministerial pay, saying they represent yet another shift in stance.

In a post on his Facebook page yesterday, Mr Lawrence Wong, chairman of the PAP's publicity and publications sub-committee, said he was 'surprised' to read in The Straits Times the WP's new explanation of why it chose the pay of MX9 (Superscale) civil servants as the benchmark for its salary formula.

Quoting the ST article, Mr Wong wrote: 'Mr Giam says that 'WP had chosen the MX9 pay even though it was pegged to that of high-income earners in the private sector'. This differs from their explanation in Parliament, where Mr Giam and his WP colleagues claimed that MX9 represented the 'general wage level' of Singaporeans.'

Mr Wong rebutted this claim, comparing the WP's estimate of the MX9 salary of $11,000 a month with median income.

Citing statistics available on the Manpower Ministry's website, Mr Wong, who is Minister of State for Education and Defence, said the median income of Singaporean workers in 2010 was $2,588 a month. Around 94 per cent of the resident labour force, which includes both Singapore citizens and permanent residents, earned less than $10,000 a month in 2010.

Mr Wong said 'basic research from open sources' would have shown that $11,000 is several times higher than the median income and anyone earning that sum is above the 94th percentile of income earners.

The Straits Times had asked Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam why the WP chose the MX9 salary as its benchmark for MPs' allowances if the party knew it was pegged to high-income earners in the private sector.

In an e-mail reply last Friday, Mr Giam said the MX9 salary is about the same as the income of a household at the 80th percentile - much lower than the Government's benchmark of the top 1,000 earners, 'yet high enough to reflect the seniority and scope of responsibilities of an MP'.

The Government has accepted a review committee's recommendation to peg ministers' salaries to the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, with a 40 per cent discount.

Yesterday, Mr Wong shot down Mr Giam's comparison of the MX9 salary with household income at the 80th percentile.

That 'is not a like-for-like claim', Mr Wong wrote, as Mr Giam was comparing the income of a single working person with the combined income of a household, which could contain more than one working member.

'Mr Giam does not need any unpublished information to know that he was comparing apples with oranges. Yet he proceeded anyway. Was this done intentionally to slant the comparison in his favour, and mislead and confuse the public?' Mr Wong asked.

He said he, like many Singaporeans, wanted to move past the salary issue and focus on more pressing national matters.

But he added that he has been 'very perturbed by the changes in the WP position', as it relates fundamentally to what the party stands for and believes in.

The WP did not respond to queries by press time.

In a separate post on Facebook, Mr Wong responded to talk about elitism in the civil service, which emerged during the pay debate.

He wrote that the civil service system is open and meritocratic, and able civil servants throughout the public service can aspire to jobs at higher levels, including those undertaken by Administrative Service officers.

'Indeed several officers originally from the Management Executive (MX) and other professional schemes are now permanent secretaries of ministries and CEOs of statutory boards. I know from personal experience that the system works and provides pathways for all to excel, because I entered the civil service as an MX officer too,' he added.

Mr Wong joined the Ministry of Trade and Industry in 1997 as an economist, entered the Administrative Service in 2002, and was chief executive of the Energy Market Authority when he resigned last year to enter politics.

Enough about pay, time to focus on economy, say Singaporeans

By Rachel Chang & Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 21 Jan 2012

DESPITE lingering concerns over ministerial salaries, many ordinary Singaporeans want the Government to move past the divisive issue and turn its focus to other pressing matters - like steering the economy away from a looming slowdown.

They had mixed feelings about this week's three-day parliamentary debate on the issue. Some like undergraduate Jason Su, 25, praised the debate for being 'rich in content'.

Others like school bus driver Ng Song Heng, 60, struggled to understand the proceedings.

Mr Ng earns $1,000 a month. He is all right with ministers being paid high salaries as long as they can improve his life, he said in Mandarin.

Among the 20 Singaporeans The Straits Times interviewed, the majority said they preferred not to prolong the arguments over how much ministers should be paid.

Among them is salesman Lau Chin Hwa, 45, who learnt this week that his company is not making money and that he will not be paid a bonus this year.

'The recession is coming,' he said. 'I hope the Government can help us rather than talk about their pay.'

Earlier this month, a Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries recommended a new benchmark that would peg political pay to the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners, with a 40 per cent discount.

That means ministers will see their pay packets cut by 37 per cent.

On Wednesday, Parliament voted to endorse this new benchmark, after a heated debate.

The largest opposition party in the House, the Workers' Party (WP), opposed the motion.

It proposed its own benchmark, which would peg ministerial pay to five times that of MPs' allowances, which in turn would be pegged to the pay of a segment of senior civil servants.

Logistics manager Omarul Farook, said he accepts the new benchmark recommended by the review committee as it 'is much fairer than the old, and more representative'.

Mr Farook, 28, also noted the similarity between the WP's proposed base monthly salary of $55,000 and the committee's recommendation.

'When the WP disagrees in Parliament, it's all politics. The figures are so similar, so what are they arguing over?' he said.

Others, like housewife Esther Ong, 48, prefer the WP's benchmark.

The pay of the top 1,000 Singaporean income earners will rise faster than general wages and, in turn, cause ministerial pay to rise at a faster rate as well, she said.

Mr Hong Kok Wah, 48, agrees with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean that the debate on ministers' pay has moved on, as both PAP and WP Members of Parliament now accept the need for ministerial salaries to be competitive with those in the private sector.

Mr Hong, who is self-employed, said: 'I think both parties acknowledge that whether it is MPs or ministers or PM (Prime Minister), they need to be sufficiently compensated for their efforts.'

Former Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong agreed that the WP and PAP have converged but said 'that is less important than convergence between the PAP and the people, which has not happened'.

Some expect the issue to rear its head again.

Manager Ho Kai Weng, 35, said that will happen when people are unhappy with policy outcomes or inefficiencies in the system.

National University of Singapore (NUS) law professor Walter Woon offered a different perspective.

He said the debate over ministers' pay has become a proxy for dissatisfaction with the divide between the top earners and the vast majority of Singaporeans.

'No amount of argument with facts and figures will change that,' added Prof Woon, a former Attorney-General and Nominated MP.

In joining the debate on Tuesday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said he did not expect his speech to be the last word on the issue.

The Government has also accepted the committee's recommendation for an independent committee to review ministerial salaries every five years.

Against that backdrop, governance expert Neo Boon Siong of the Nanyang Technological University agrees with those who said the country should move on.

The committee's proposals are 'sensible and reasonable', he said.

'There's no perfect answer and we'll know more only from carrying out this package.

'So let's take it from here and leave it to the next review to see if there are areas to be improved,' he added.

Workers' Party's pay formula puzzling

THE Workers' Party (WP) says pegging ministerial pay to that of top earners sends the message that the value of public office can be monetised.

If that is so, why does the WP propose to peg ministerial salaries to the allowances of MPs, and apply a premium of between five and 10 times the allowance? ('Pay ministers five times an MP's allowance'; Tuesday).

How is its quantification of public duty different from that of Mr Gerard Ee's committee?

Can the party recommend any candidate of ministerial calibre among the group of selfless individuals serving the community at paltry wages?

Unfortunately, the people with the right attributes tend to be high-income earners who would have to take a cut in their salaries as well as personal time to embrace public duty.

Whether the WP likes it or not, the above is a fact, and why it makes more sense to peg ministerial pay to the pool of top income earners and apply a public service discount.

As the WP knows, Cabinet ministers are first elected into Parliament by their constituents, before being selected by the prime minister to form the Government.

So the point made by WP MP Chen Show Mao, that the party's proposal to peg ministerial salaries to MP allowances 'expresses the fact that ministers are, first and foremost, elected as MPs to serve and represent the people', is merely a technicality.

Toh Cheng Seong
ST Forum, 19 Jan 2012

PAP MPs not being 'adversarial' but pointing out flaws in argument
Letter from Lou Woei Cherng, TODAY, 21 Jan 2012

I refer to the letter "Why the adversarial tone during salary debate?" (Jan 20), which stated that most of the hostility originated from the People's Action Party's (PAP) backbenchers, while the opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) were "measured and calm".

However, the tone was set by the Workers' Party (WP), for example, MP Pritam Singh, who asked if ministers had "golden teeth", after a PAP MP expressed dissatisfaction with their S$70 dental benefit. How was that measured?

In contrast, the PAP MPs kept their arguments civil and did not make personal attacks; they were exposing a flaw in the WP's position.

When Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam was asked what proposals he had made to Mr Gerard Ee's committee, he declined to give details.

NCMP Yee Jenn Jong then said that the WP was not obliged to share everything with the committee and were entitled to propose their ideas in Parliament - even though it was important for the committee to consider all ideas in Singapore's best interests.

When asked to clarify, Mr Yee changed tack and said that the WP had shared what it had with the committee but had not finished its research.

When Mr Giam was asked if he would disclose what was discussed, he said he would "consider" it. I am not aware that he has done so yet. The WP says it believes in transparency but is not prepared to practise it.

I have no problems with a robust debate: Civility does not mean keeping silent. It is the duty of MPs to point out flaws in any argument, so that only good ideas go through. I am glad that PAP MPs are taking their duties seriously.

Why the adversarial tone during salary debate?
Letter from Kelvin Quek, TODAY, 20 Jan 2012

I READ and watched most of the coverage of the debate on ministerial salaries in the mainstream media and online and was disappointed by the unnecessarily adversarial tone and bipartisan accusations that marred an otherwise interesting and serious debate.

Ironically, most of the hostility originated from the People's Action Party's backbenchers. The ministers were, by and large, civil in presenting their arguments and countering the opposition's points.

So too were the opposition Members of Parliament; they were measured and calm in articulating their disagreements with the committee's proposals.

But a few of the PAP MPs clearly went overboard in their attacks on the Workers' Party's stance, in particular, the accusations that the WP was playing political games, withholding their best ideas from the committee and acting in the party's interest rather than the country's.

These were mainly the newer MPs who seemed eager to make an impression or showcase their debating skills.The General Election is over. Singaporeans expect their elected MPs to engage in rigorous debate on policy alternatives in Parliament, with the nation's interests at heart.

There is no need to descend to election-type rhetoric, which detracts from the serious issues at hand. We can leave that for the next GE campaign.

The Government has made clear that it prefers Singapore not to have the kind of adversarial politics seen in other countries and that the Opposition here should not oppose for the sake of opposing.

This must also mean that the ruling party should not give any impression that it treats the Opposition in Parliament as an enemy, and its MPs should not oppose the Opposition's arguments for the sake of opposing.

Analysts, MPs share thoughts on political pay debate
By Evelyn Choo, Channel NewsAsia, 19 Jan 2012

Discussions on political pay didn't stop at Parliament on Wednesday.

Analysts and two members of the House shared their thoughts in a post-debate forum hosted by Channel NewsAsia.

The forum sought to garner reactions to the debate, and addressed concerns moving forward.

Both parliamentarians also agreed that it was time to move on.

Mr Gerald Giam, Non-Constituency MP, said: "I think this whole salary issue is a work-in-progress and it will be revisited in time to come. I think it's also time for us to move on to other important issues."

Mr Inderjit Singh, MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC, said: "This is a very important signal to Singaporeans that today we have agreed on a level of salary which encompasses the three principles, and it's something that's going to work for us."

Human resource expert Declan O'Sullivan noted that the government's ability to avoid financial crises is largely attributable to its level of accountability - something he has not seen elsewhere in the world.

Mr Declan O'Sullivan, managing director of Kerry Consulting, said: "I think they're (the Cabinet) being underpaid as it is. Really, genuinely. So in that sense, this huge amount of focus on whether somebody gets three or five months bonus, I think it's energy mis-spent. This country has huge potential challenges facing it."

Political analyst Eugene Tan then concluded that there is a need to engage Singaporeans at the heart, not just the mind.

Assistant Professor Eugene Tan, from the School of Law at the Singapore Management University, said: "I think the debate was important, but there was too much quibbling about the figures and all. I felt, for example, the debate could have focused on what is fair pay. What is it that would be fair for the talent, for the commitment that ministers are paying."

And that's where he hopes public discourse would strive towards.

Why Singapore has the cleanest government money can buy
by Bloomberg editorial, 25 Jan 2012

Singapore's Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, isn't often taken publicly to task. But when you make S$3.1 million annually to run a country, people tend to expect results. When they don't get them, the aggrieved masses turn to that lowest-of-common-denominator gripes: Hey, how much are we paying this guy?

Lots compared with, say, Mr Barack Obama, who as United States President gets US$400,000 a year. Mr Lee's compensation will fall 36 per cent, and that of Singapore's President will drop 51 per cent, to S$1.54 million. The cuts were based on the recommendations of an advisory committee formed three weeks after last May's elections, when opposition party candidates made hay with the pay issue - and the ruling People's Action Party won with the narrowest margin since independence in 1965.

Such still-fat pay cheques may give pause. Yet let's applaud Singapore for what it's trying to achieve by paying top salaries to leaders and ministers: Attracting the best and brightest to public service and reducing the temptation to engage in graft.

Done properly, such initiatives can make government more efficient and economies more vibrant. Transparency International has ranked Singapore among the world's top five least-corrupt governments since 2001, and according to Worldwide Governance Indicators, an index supported by the World Bank, it has also been among the best governed.

ASIA'S MIXED RECORD

Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the region's other governments have had a mixed record in holding public servants to account, making growth more efficient, and creating the institutions - independent judiciaries, central banks and media as well as freer watchdog groups - needed to clean up political and economic systems.

One way for Asian countries, home to a big share of the world's households living on US$2 (S$2.53) per day, to boost their economies is to increase the pay of their civil servants.

Take Cambodia, which ranked at the bottom of a recent regional Transparency International corruption survey. Its government workers pad their paltry, sporadic pay by demanding bribes for everything from birth certificates to school grades.

One oft-cited International Monetary Fund working paper argues that paying civil servants twice the wages of manufacturing workers is associated with a reduction in corruption. In Cambodia, civil servants make less than half what a garment worker makes.

In China, corruption is the common link between state-owned banks doling out billions of dollars to cronies; land grabs by local government officials; and the negligence that killed 40 people in a high-speed rail crash last July.

If Beijing paid higher salaries, it might reduce the incidence of graft and rent-seeking that aggravates the lopsidedness of China's development. Its Gini coefficient, an income-distribution gauge, has climbed to almost 0.5 from less than 0.3 a quarter-century ago.

JAPAN'S SLUSH FUNDS

Japan should consider fattening public pay cheques, too.

Although Japan's best and brightest are still drawn by the prestige of a government career, over the past two decades the differential between private and public salaries has grown. Ministerial slush funds help make up the difference, and in recent years, numerous scandals have arisen involving bureaucrats using such money for limousines, louche excursions, and golf-club memberships.

More fundamentally, Japan's economic model encourages dangerous collusion between the public and private sectors. The root of the problem is "amakudari", or "descent from heaven". It's the main gravy train for public servants; when they retire, ministers and bureaucrats get cushy jobs in industries they oversaw while in government. The incentive is to look out for your future employer, not taxpayers.

Japan's nuclear crisis, for example, was made worse by power-industry regulators focused on their post-government careers, not Japan's 126 million people. Pledges by the ruling Democratic Party of Japan to abolish "amakudari" have gone unfulfilled. But for the sake of its citizens' welfare, Japan needs to end the practice, perhaps in return for better salaries and pensions.

DETECTION AND PUNISHMENT

Of course, throwing money at corruption won't make it go away. If it did, countries such as Kenya, which pays its Members of Parliament handsomely - more than US$13,000 a month - would be paragons of virtue instead of cellar-dwellers in Transparency International's annual Corruption Perceptions Index.

Decent salaries are just one incentive that can tilt the cost-benefit analyses of potential bribe-takers toward probity: More important than reducing the potential financial benefits of corruption is increasing the probability of detection and meaningful punishment.

Singapore isn't exactly a hotbed of anti-corruption muckraking. According to the 2010 US State Department Human Rights Report, journalists in Singapore practise "self-censorship", the level of public debate is "moderate", and opposition parties face "formidable obstacles".

Yet the city-state does have an aggressive Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau; professional courts; a ramrod political will inculcated by its first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew (father of Mr Lee Hsien Loong); and a ruthless, relentless emphasis on efficiency and results.

Not every country can follow that recipe, especially those with larger, more diverse populations. Still, countries like Cambodia can start by auditing its public services to get a sense of how bad corruption really is - something that it will have to do in any case to comply with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.

Civil-society groups can help greatly in that process: We think the UN would be wise to let them take part in the process it has created to review a country's anti-corruption efforts.

Japan could benefit greatly from an independent watchdog agency to investigate corruption; given its global influence, we also don't understand why it is one of only 35 countries yet to ratify the UN convention.

And even if the huge internal challenges of fighting corruption in China risk tampering with the prerogatives of Communist Party control, the government could crack down on the pervasive bribe-mongering of Chinese companies overseas, which presents a huge global challenge.

There's an old saying in Asia that the real money is in government. Not the pay cheques, but the kickbacks. Isn't it possible that a bit more capitalism at the highest levels of public service will make capitalism itself more efficient and equitable? We think Singapore proves it can.