Episode Transcript
[00:00:01] Speaker A: The best insight Instant Feedback Accountability the all new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5 welcome to our program. A gentleman who is well respected in the field of business finance economist. Let's say hello and good morning. Welcome to our program. Takeonomist Ronald Ramkis Good morning to you. Nice to have you with us here this morning.
[00:00:24] Speaker B: Good morning, Satish. And a pleasant good morning to you all, your audience as well. Thank you very much for inviting me.
[00:00:32] Speaker A: Our discussion this morning is on a topic that has been with us for quite some time and there are some developments as a result of what has transpired and that is the SRC report. And well, last week the Prime Minister making the announcement that the government intends to accept the report.
Some things have transpired since then. There were some issues prior. Let me. Let's begin our discussion by me getting from you your opinion on the entire matter. Let's begin with the report as compiled, the increases as proposed and the decision by the Prime Minister to accept.
[00:01:16] Speaker B: Well, Satish, there are at least two major issues I think we need to to be clear about in respect of the report.
The first one is the need to make a distinction between a job and in respect of what we're talking about the job of a PS, A judge, the leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, a job which has certain kinds of requirements regardless of who occupies that job.
And so, so, so we need to make the distinction between, between that and then the persons who actually occupy those positions.
And I think in the public discussion the two are equated.
But I don't think that that is appropriate in respect of what the SRC report did and what it is saying.
Essentially it is saying that these positions, because of their levels of responsibility, etc.
And they have done presumably the scientific work in arriving at what should be an appropriate compensation package for a particular job. And we assume that they have done an appropriate, the appropriate work and based on some elements of the report, we see that they have done the comparisons they have done.
The second issue that arises really and which the public is very much engaged in is whether those persons occupying those jobs at the present time all deserve that or those particular increases that were that the SRC came up with and that I think is very legitimate because there we're talking about performances. How do the candidates who occupy the positions, how well have they performed those jobs? Nothing to in my view, to that does not speak to whether those jobs deserve that kind of compensation package.
And that has created.
There's a lot of discussion that these positions or some of Them at least do not deserve the kinds of increases that have been proposed by the sirc.
[00:04:34] Speaker A: As I said, that's why I thought I'd give you the opportunity to tell us some of what you think needs to be considered. When you listen to some of the comments.
People make comments based on their own perspective and their own realities, and you can't take that away from them. Somebody whose salary is $3,500 and there are people who work for that in this country a month here that the prime minister's salary is already almost 60,000 and is going to go up by 20 something thousand dollars, they see that as obscene and there are some who use that to their advantage to further whatever agenda and all those kinds of things. But I've heard a lot of emotion as opposed to actual rationalized discussion in some instances because I've asked the question, if people are saying that the increase is unfair, what are you using to determine that this is unfair?
Because we've not heard from the SRC in great detail. I mean, they've provided the report, but the SRC has not said to the nation, well, this is how we arrived at what we arrived at. And probably if the SRC came out and gave that kind of clarity, it would sober up some of the discussions that we are having. Because a number of people have made the statement that they think that office holders of a certain level need to be compensated in a certain way.
And as a result of that, they're not necessarily opposed to what's being proposed. But as I said, there are some who, when you're working for that kind of small money, which is small, it's big for people who get in it, you cannot begin to imagine these kinds of increases. How can we ever get, can we ever get to a stage where increases for certain office holders does not meet this kind of criticism? And do you think that the criticism that we are seeing today is hinged a lot on how the government has conditioned the country by saying to the nation that we don't have money.
[00:06:50] Speaker B: Satish, let me make these points on what you have raised.
It is understandable the answer, if you like, in respect of that gap between the recommendations of the SRC and the particular issues facing public servants and workers in general.
But the conversation needs to focus on how do we evaluate the jobs in the public sector at lower levels, the levels in which you have collective bargaining determining what they the increases or so should be. In other words, the job that has been done by the SRC needs to be done for the public service As a whole. And indeed, this might be an opportunity to really reform and revamp the public service because one needs to do the same kind of job description and job evaluation and then compensation package for a 21st century public service. This is long overdue. And I understand the public angst because you cannot be using, if you like, one particular methodology for top officials and then at lower ranks, you are not doing the kind of scientific assessment and evaluation that is required. Now, mind you, you may still have some amount of, and some amount of disagreement and so on. And that is natural in the process because when you do an evaluation, some people would get their job. Their job, again, I'm making that distinction, can be upgraded, downgraded, stay the same, because you are evaluating a job for a particular purpose. However, I think we need to use the circumstance, some would call it unfortunate circumstance, to revamp the entire public service. And we need to do this. In fact, we needed to do this since 1962, as in fact, we keep reading and hearing about what countries like South Korea, sorry, Singapore, did in At Independence and which explains why the public service in that country is the best, if not one of the best in the world in terms of how that small country operates. And I think that this might be an appropriate time to evaluate.
I know some work, I read about some kind of work taking place in the public service in respect of job descriptions and so on. It is taking too long.
We have had several assessments, evaluations, job evaluations done.
But I think even those in the public sector would admit that we need a total revamp of the public sector. And given where the economy is, you alluded to the situation of slow or low growth, the situation of the foreign exchange issues, and all the other issues facing the economy at this time. I think there are a number of reasons why we should use the opportunity to revamp the very important public service and that we should not be doing it piecemeal. That is only going to create chaos and it is going to hold back progress of the country.
[00:10:58] Speaker A: When you say revamp, to what objective are we looking at? Cutting out the fat, increasing the remuneration? What does revamp mean?
[00:11:09] Speaker B: So revamp means you begin by, by saying what you want your public service to do in a small open economy.
And we have several reports that have been done that would have looked at where do we want to take this country. And we can go back to Vision 2020, we can go to Vision 2030, the current vision, the operational plan that came out of that. We can go to the work that is currently being done on the public sector, work that has been done. So you need to have a vision for the country and you then need to have a vision and a plan for how the public sector, starting from Prime Minister to clerk to cleaner, how they are going to implement this vision, bearing in mind the changes that are taking place in the world, the uncertainties that are before us, and what are the kinds of jobs that are critical for taking the public service forward faster. And very importantly, you need to compensate everyone across the board appropriately. Of course, public servants need to understand the value of education, the value of training, the value of being aware of the uncertainties in the world and in jobs.
For example, the question of the introduction of AI in terms of the technology that is changing so rapidly. And we need to introduce rapidly these new technologies in the public service that are viewed to far greater productivity and readying ourselves to compete with the rest of the world.
[00:13:08] Speaker A: It seems, or it sounds like a monumental task to re engineer a public service that is set in its ways for decades to now try to bring about the change that is needed, the change that's necessary for the country to go where it needs to go. I remember having a conversation with Basde Upande a couple years ago and we focused on the education system, his dollar for dollar and his thrust in education. And he had said that there's a major problem because the education that exists is not the education that's needed to take the country where it needs to go, or there's a disconnect because between where we want to go, where we need to go and how we intend to get there. And it seems as though from what you're saying, the public service is mired in the same kinds of challenges of reengineering somebody, reengineering it so that we can get the optimum potential from our public service to take us as a nation where we want to go.
That's a whole different discussion because we've spoken to Minister of Public Administration Alison west, and if you speak to her, she seems to be confident that the government is doing it right, that they're on the right path, on the right agenda and everything else. But as I said, that's a different discussion.
Going back to the SRC report where the Prime Minister made the announcement last week that the government intends to accept now that start a whole set of discussions about whether it was the right thing to do, the wrong thing to do and all those kinds of things. The Prime Minister said he's willing to stand all fallout, political and otherwise. Since then There have been a couple calls for the Prime Minister to rethink that decision.
What's your opinion?
[00:15:02] Speaker B: Well, I think to rethink the position is appropriate.
I also think that as you alluded to or former prime minister accepted, and I think most prime ministers, if not all of them since independence, have accepted the need for a revamp of the public sector. The importance of the public sector. What has been missing is the action to actually do what they recognize needs to be done.
They have complained about the public sector, they have pointed to the legislation, they have pointed to culture, et cetera. However, you are right to say it is a mammoth task, but we must start somewhere.
And I would argue that now is a good time as any, given the public angst, discussion, whatever.
And I think it would be useful if the public can demand that in the current season that politicians and political parties put in their manifestos significant, substantial recommendations for the reform of the public sector. Because we are not going to go very far as a country if we do not start that process. Yes, there are certain indications that we are moving to catch up in respect of the technology, digitalization, AI awareness. Some kind of things are happening by force to some extent. COVID 19 forced us into moving a bit faster in respect of the existing technologies and looking at the way in which we produce as a country.
But we have not, unfortunately, in my view, in my humble view, kept pace with the kind of way we seem to have been developing out of necessity arising from COVID 19.
And I think it is important that we perhaps behave as if this is a critical time, and it indeed is a critical time. I think it will be accepted by all across the board to make the necessary changes to the public sector because it is critical in the enforcement of all the projects that we would like going in health, in infrastructure, in diversification. The public sector is critical and we have to find the ways and means to get it moving faster.
I would argue. Satish.
[00:18:14] Speaker A: Yeah, I understand the validity of what you're suggesting and how important it is to the nation and us being able to survive in a world that is changing so fast.
As a nation, we are always lagging behind when it comes to development, when it comes to progressing alongside other nations in technology and all of these other things. I had asked you the question about the Prime Minister, whether or not he should change his opinion, rethink the entire thing, because of the signal that it would send by accepting. Yesterday we spoke to UGARTH President, Dr. Indira Rampasad, and she began the conversation by saying that Wigard is now seeking the very same 47% that the Prime Minister gave to himself.
So while I, I mean she's entitled to her opinion and while I think that is just that position is just going to frustrate and already convoluted process.
What's your take on how the Prime Minister's announcement of accepting the SRC report is going to impact on negotiations like these?
[00:19:39] Speaker B: I think it is going to make unions and workers point to what the Prime Minister had said he would accept, which is the SRC's report.
I think it is going to continue to unproductive quarrels over a long period of time at a very bad time for this economy.
And that is going to SAP a lot of our energies in the toeing and froing.
The collective bargaining process itself is not working the way it is supposed to be working. And even so, I don't know that that can replace what I started by saying, which is a job evaluation of the entire public service.
I think as well point about rethinking what the Prime Minister has indicated is very much broader than simply salary increases.
Large salary increases at all levels in an economy that cannot afford that is going to widen the current account deficit. That is going to leave less for capital investment. That is not going to help us put us in a good place. And therefore we need to think, well, if this report is going to be accepted, is there any other way or any other issue to look at in respect of compensation for the public sector as a whole? I've already said it ought not to be. It is not very productive to be done piecemeal.
I think, for example, that we have, partly because of the salaries, the compensation package in the public sector. It is my view that we have not gotten some of the best citizens to occupy positions in the public sector. We have not been able to recruit some of our best citizens.
I'm an optimist, Satish, and I would hope that the compensation package that has been recommended for jobs in the public sector would see more competent citizens apply for jobs in the public sector.
And that goes from the political directorate right through.
But to be able to recruit appropriate persons to particular jobs, one must have these jobs well defined.
And secondly, there's the issue of accountability, which is a topic well known in the public sector and the public sector yet, sorry, in the private sector, yes, we know that private sector compensation in general tends to be much higher than some public sector and senior public sector jobs. But there's the issue of, well, how do we measure whether someone has been doing a Proper job. How do we measure whether a politician has been doing a proper job and therefore compensate he or she, that person appropriately? I think that that is a very important question.
We seem to be able to do it at lower levels. We must find ways to do it right through the system. And if someone thinks they deserve at the highest level, then there must be somehow, in a democratic system, we must find ways of evaluation that that would be as the best that we can do.
But we have to speak about the productivity.
How have you done that job? Am I satisfied with your performance over whatever period of time you have done that? So I'm saying monitoring and evaluation of any job is critical. It is not only about what is the appropriate compensation for that job. It is also about the monitoring and evaluation of that job. How well have you been doing it, and should you wear on the scale, should you fit? And this goes for public servants. And I want to make this particular point which I know has been made, but I think it needs to be emphasized, I think the situation in which, regardless of performance, a public servant gets a particular salary, I think that is something that is not productive about that because it demotivates those who would strive for higher performance levels. And I think that that is a very critical issue in the public service that must be looked at. But it is not going to be solved through the collective bargaining process. It has to be solved through the, if you like, scientific process of job description, evaluation, compensation according to where that falls.
[00:25:22] Speaker A: Well, I guess what it would require is a private sector approach to the public sector.
But as to how practical that would be, I can't say, because that would mean you have individual evaluations and certain targets for people to meet. And every year you do an appraisal, performance appraisal, and say, well, did you meet these targets? Did you exceed the targets? And because of that you're entitled to such and such race. But that's not something we're going to see in our lifetime, if any lifetime. Because the collective bargaining process brings with it significant benefits, with it being the way it is for stakeholders, trade unions and the Jews. I mean the public service. There are some people who do nothing to better themselves for their entire career. That's a fact. What I'm saying is a fact. They join the public service, they do very little, if anything to better themselves for their entire career. And they're guaranteed a salary increase every three years with a huge lump sum, in some instances an automatic promotion based on seniority. And all these things that are contrary to everything that happens in the private sector. We're almost out of time, but I just want to get your opinion quickly on our economy.
The recent discussions about foreign exchange have prompted a dialogue about where the economy is and what signals are sent as a result of the problems with foreign exchange. Let's get, as we wrap up our discussion, let me get your opinion on this problem with foreign exchange. What does it say about where we are when it comes to our economy?
[00:26:55] Speaker B: Well, Satish, let me just make one point in respect of what you raised before you got onto the economy.
The public and private sector have their own, their own arrangements and they are not arguing for identical comparisons.
They are different, they are motivated and moved by different kinds of considerations. The private sector is primarily profit driven.
The public sector, one would like to see a new public sector being driven by efficiency, productivity, and these can be measured. But I think there must be. The public sector will benefit a lot if it takes some of the lessons and some of the practices of the private sector. I think that will be a positive way to go on the economy. Satish, I think that we all agree, in fact, that Trinidad and Tobago is in a difficult place for the simple reason that we have not been able to diversify away from oil and gas. And this seems to be one of the worst time for us in terms of our ability to find from our own resources, fossil fuels, if you like. And I think we have agreement across the board. All politicians agree that we are in a difficult place. And one of the implications of that has always been, and it is now, that you do not have sufficient foreign exchange for the demand. And we must add, for the demand for foreign exchange at a particular price, we have to add that the demand is far greater than the supply at the particular exchange rate. We also. So that in itself tells us where part of the answer is. It tells us where part of the answer is. It is not the whole story, but it is where part of the answer is. The second point I wish to make is that an appropriate exchange rate change will have the positive effect on, to the extent that it is credible, would have inflows of foreign exchange that have been packed up abroad here, elsewhere. In other words, you not only benefit from the impact on or growing export sector through the incentives, but you also have, to the extent that it is credible, reverse flows.
That is, we hear about the foreign exchange that is held abroad and that in a sense there is no shortage of foreign exchange. One way to address that is to allow whatever is held out there to flow back into the economy through investments.
In particular, and I just introduced that as part of the conversation, not forgetting we look at an exchange rate change not in only in a static fashion, but we look at it in a dynamic fashion which is saying, well, what is likely to happen as a result of such a change?
It will not solve all our problems, but we need to consider in an overall consideration of the public sector and of how we have structured this economy and what are the best recommendations for taking us forward.
[00:30:59] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely information that will see us having another conversation because there is so much to discuss on this matter that we just scratched the surface. Dr. Ramskin, I want to thank you for being with us here this morning and giving us your insight into some of these matters. It's my pleasure having you as always.
[00:31:17] Speaker B: Thank you. And thanks to your audience. The best insight, instant feedback, accountability, the.
[00:31:24] Speaker A: All new Talk Radio Freedom 106.5.
