Dear Editor,
I had expected a more cohesive analysis from my colleague Christopher Ram’s submission in SN’s 26 October, 2015 on the Prime Minister’s salary ‘hike’ in particular.
Curiously the argumentation that the current administration should have corrected an anomaly contrived in the Burnham era, seems to have been glossed over so far as a similar responsibility being applicable to the regime of the last two decades.
It could not be that this long established aberration was unknown or not worthy of earlier critical attention. Those familiar with the design of compensation structures would know that there are basic recognisable principles to be applied – in valuing jobs, not their incumbents. The value under debate has been too long established to argue its disturbance after such a hiatus.
It is against the background of principles and best practices that Nowrang Persaud’s letter proffers the suggestion of ‘red circling’ the number in question; except that he seems to have overlooked the reasonable justification that the Prime Minister’s pay should be above that of the Attorney General, at the best of times. Without appearing to be ‘nit picking’ with my friend and colleague, I suspect Nowrang would agree that the process of ‘red circling’ usually applies to those persons whose rates would have exceeded the maximum of the value range (scale) established for the job. There is no similar arrangement in respect of the issue being discussed.
Albeit, so many perspectives have been brought to the table on this issue, justifiably so. Certainly the Administration has volunteered too many spokesmen, all of whom have exposed their lack of apprehension of how the controversial new structure was formulated.
Based on this example of confusion one is therefore not unreasonably concerned about how the eagerly anticipated results of the COI into the Public Service compensation restructuring will be comprehended, and indeed presented!
Yours faithfully
E.B. John
