[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: A few un-related but important things:

Dear Mr. Sabhlok

This is about salaries and qualifications in Govt in Singapore:

There are no formal qualifications as such. But a candidate goes through
a rigorous screening process for both basic understandinf and numeracy,
but also for political aspects as well.

Salaries of the Ministers and top bureaucrats are pegged to private
sector salaries.


> ----------
> From:         Sanjeev Sabhlok[SMTP:sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu]
> Reply To:     debate@indiapolicy.org
> Sent:         Sunday, November 29, 1998 1:55 AM
> To:   debate@indiapolicy.org
> Subject:      A few un-related but important things:
> a) India: A Divided Nation?
> ===========================
> Don't have much time at the moment to dwell on this issue, but was
> glancing thro' the book, "Legacy of a Divided Nation: India's Muslims
> Since Independence," by Mushirul Hasan, 1997. I have had it next to me

> since over six months, but not yet spent time on it. Always thought
> religious issues are less important than economic.
> But Prof. Roy's repeated insistence that we look at this issue, plus
> fact that many others seem to revert to these issues, makes me believe

> that we MUST find out and then portray the basic statistics of India's

> religious past and present for all to see on the WWW. There are many
> myths which circulate in this area, and I know personally of some
> which were exploded for us as young civil servants by N.C. Saxena, who

> had carried out detailed studies on communal riots.
> This book is loaded with excellent data; but more than that it seems
> be a rather interesting look at the problems of India from a rather
> secular Muslim perspective. The author seems to have unfortunately got

> enmeshed in some controversy. If anyone else has read this book and is

> willing to send the tables/ charts in a digital format, pl. do so.
> Also, a summary would be welcome. We
> will put up these charts for all to see. Also, we might benefit from
> having the author on board.
> Also came across this organization called Sampradayitka Virodhi
> which has a flyer stating some interesting things:
> "The Report on the Status of Women in India (1975) shows that the
> of polygamous marriages was greater among Hindus than among Muslims.
> 5.06% of Hindu marriages were polygamous and 4.31% of Muslim marriages

> (1 out of 25) were polygamous."
> If we can get hold of this organization and get its reps on board,
> would be nice, too.
> b) Corrigendum:
> ==============
> I mentioned once that Xiaobo Lu is from Harvard. He is actually from
> Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, and is
> specialist in corruption in China and Russia.
> c)  Request to folk from Singapore:
> ===================================
> (don't know if I already sent in this: if I did, please excuse the
> duplication).
> We have a bunch of people here who live in Singapore. Prof. Asher,
> Srikumar, John Rozario and Arvind was there too a short while ago. I
> would be very grateful if one is enlightened not only about the
> drawn by politicians and bureaucrats but also about the qualifications

> that are required for various positions.
> My understandipinng is that Ph.D. is required in many positions, as
> a strong industry experience, before being allowed to take economic
> decisions for the country.
> In India, we are very happy with the ancient British ICS system where
> B.A. in English coupled with links in high places is considered the
> qualification to take economic decisions for India. That system had
> merit of course; because ICS officers were so well paid, they at least

> were not corrupt.
> That is the key to good governance: competence + compensation.
> We do not want to increase the compensation to Singaporean levels
> without at the same time insisiting on the highest possible standards
> academic qualification and industry experience. However, data on
> Singapore will be very highly appreciated. I hear a lot about it, but
> do not have personal knowledge of the qualifications expected for
> various jobs.
> Also, finally: there must be a rather easy system to fire a bureaucrat

> for incompetence, and not merely for corruption. We have in some
> (e.g., Assam) some real bad cases: we have a senior officer who comes
> office drunk, drinks while in office, and takes decisions while drunk.

> He is not kicked out of the job since we have made these positions
> sinecures, and people are too sympathetic toward incompetence.
> d) Clearing House: Corporation for Enterprise Development
> =========================================================
> We, on IPI, are essentially, "incentive reformers" for India. We are
> trying to design good incentives for all sectors of India.
> In a regime of true liberalization, it is not for the planning
> commission (which will be dismantled by then) that will do this
> allocation of businesses to various states, but the states themselves.

> The Chinese model is particularly relevant for India in this context
> the American models of log-rolling, etc.
> The USA has started a project to study how policy makers and
> can interact with each other to ensure a 'best' deal for the business
> and the state/city. The project is called Clearinghouse.
> I like this idea very much; having a clearning house in India where
> businesses can check out incentives, if any, and the position of labor

> laws, etc. The system could be a kind of 'auction,' where businesses
> such as Tatas could propose to set up a plant somewhere and the states

> could 'bid' for the project by offering whatever it is that they want
> offer (particularly law and order).
> This will help people from states like Assam which are shunned by
> businesses (how many Tata executives have been kidnapped/ killed in
> Assam?) to realize that the world is not sitting somewhere to do a
> to them, but that they have to PAY a price to get the best brains into

> that state. Today, I know that many of the best brains of Assam are
> leaving the state en-masse. The same prevails perhaps in Bihar and
> states.
> The concept of Clearning house perhaps needs to be built into the
> statement for IPI. It is something that the Indian Govt., the CII, and

> others should be doing RIGHT NOW!
> Sanjeev
> October 30, 1998
> Dear Friend:
> As you well know, the competition between state and local governments
> recruit new companies or to retain existing ones has never been more
> intense.  Annually, states and localities across the country spend
> hundreds of millions of public dollars on a variety of tax incentives
> and spending programs whose use has fueled a new incentives' "arms
> among the states.  Since our publication of Bidding for Business: Are
> Cities and States Selling Themselves Short? and Improving Your
> Climate: A Guide To Smarter Public Investments in Economic
> the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) and its allies have
> been seeking to hold business incentives to a higher standard of
> accountability.  Recently, the Ford Foundation has awarded CFED a
> to continue this work by creating a "Business Incentive Reform
> Clearinghouse."   Its specific goals include:
> *       Serving to strengthen the ties between policymakers and the
> academic research on incentives design, reform, administration, and
> evaluation ideas;
> *       Creating a forum for dialogues between reform experts,
> researchers, policymakers, journalists, and the informed public;
> *       Exploring new federal, state, and local reform options; and
> *       Tracking the latest reform alternatives and the latest case
> studies of unaccountable incentive uses.
> The Clearinghouse will use the following methods to accomplish the
> goals:
> *       Conducting timely and relevant research;
> *       Publishing a regular electronic newsletter, Accountabilty: The

> Newsletter of the Business Incentive Reform Clearinghouse.
> *       Organizing dialogue on the most significant incentive reform
> research questions;
> *       Developing and managing an accessible, yet thorough web site;
> and
> *       Running a speakers' bureau.
> However, if we are to succeed in establishing an effective vehicle for

> disseminating timely, accurate, and user-friendly information about
> reform best practice, we need your help.  Now and in the future, could

> you please send us:
> *       News clippings about incentive reform debates and current
> competitions to attract or retain corporate facilities;
> *       Bibliographies or citations of good technical or journalistic
> articles on the topic;
> *       Examples of new legislation;
> *       Evaluations of earlier reform tools, such as sunset reviews,
> performance-based contracts, disclosure legislation, etc.;
> *       New reform proposals and ideas; and
> *       Anything else that you think would aid incentive reformers.
> With your help, we hope to have the Clearinghouse fully operable early

> in 1999 at www.cfed.org.   For more information, contact: Matt Hull or

> Bill Schweke at the Corporation for Enterprise Development 123 West
> oStreet, 3rd Floor, Durham, NC 27701 (phone: 919-688-6444; fax:
> 919-688-6580.  Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
> Sincerely,
> William Schweke
> Senior Program Director

This is the National Debate on System Reform.       debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/