Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Village idiot's question: What is the EP's KPI?

I'm trying to ignore all the "wayang" (stage-managing) over the Elected Presidency run-up (as opposed to what's going on in the social media), but it's really getting to be irritating.

One EP wannabe candidate, in particular, seems to be regularly in the right place at the right time for the mainstream media to report.

There's a certain flavour-of-the-month (FotM) consistency to their grandstanding. All started with protestations of how independent they are from the ruling party. Examples of such independence were trotted out.

The current FotM is how focused they are on being "the voice of the people". It reminds me of a certain music recording label, HMV. All insist they do not/will not sing to HMV.

But really, when all is said and done, what is the EP's KPI, and how is that matched to his remuneration package, currently $4 million plus (but likely to be reduced)?

Ministers' salaries, for all the controversy surrounding them, are pegged to private sector benchmarks. What is the EP's benchmark?

One can even argue that his custodial roles can be assigned to a panel of eminent Singaporeans familiar with both the import of the national reserves and the integrity of key public service personnel. There is already a Presidential Advisory panel which can, with changes if necessary, become such a panel.

We can't have our cake and eat it. Either it's a KPI-based $x-million job which has a benchmark to the corporate world, which means the EP will have to have commensurate executive power; or it's a job with its current responsibilities as spelt out, in which an eminent and qualified individual who has already reached a high pinnacle offers his service as public service. All expenses related to all his presidential duties are fully paid for by the state, and what he gets is a suitable but not multi-million dollar remuneration package.

But, just as my argument for the $2 COE is tilting at windmills, so is this argument. It's just two cents worth.

No comments:

Post a Comment