Debated in Parliament on 21 Jan 2014.
Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Education (a) what is the current percentage breakdown of education officers who are Principals, Vice Principals and heads of departments who are at the substantive job grade that is equivalent to their appointment; (b) what is the percentage of (i) appointment holders who are still not in their potential substantive grade even after five years of holding the appointment (ii) school leaders who retired at the substantive grade below their appointment; and (c) what are the reasons for not appointing
Page: 18
these education officers at the correct substantive grade.
Madam, MOE is guided by the Civil Service's Human Resource philosophies and principles. In the Civil Service, job grades are used to determine the size of a job. Officers are required to spend some years in their current substantive grade so that they can continue to grow in their skills and knowledge to become fully competent at this level. Once the officers are assessed to have the potential to take on a higher level job, they will also be tested out at a higher level job. They will be promoted to that job level after they have proven to be capable of doing well at that level.
Notwithstanding this, a few school leaders could retire at substantive grades below their appointments for a variety of reasons, such as early retirement due to medical conditions or family commitments, or due to performance issues. In 2013, one out of 14 Principals and Vice Principals who retired was at a substantive grade below his/her appointment.
MOE is committed to developing our officers and ensuring that good officers are duly recognised and rewarded. We have put in place a competitive remuneration framework and structured career development pathways, so that we can retain our best educators and nurture them into the school leaders of tomorrow.
I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply, but I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has not answered specifically the questions that are addressed in my PQ. The question is already there. I would appreciate a specific response to the PQ.
Madam, I would appreciate if the Member is specific about what he wants MOE to follow up with.
To ask the Minister for Education (a) what is the current percentage breakdown of education officers who are Principals, Vice Principals and heads of departments who are at the substantive grade that is equivalent to their job appointment. So, I need a figure for each of these grades; (b) What is the percentage of (i) appointment holders who are still not in their potential substantive grade even after five years of holding the appointment; (ii) school leaders who retired at the substantive grade below their appointment, which I think the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has provided one out of 14. And he has also provided what are the reasons for not appointing these education
Page: 19
officers at the correct substantive grade.
Madam, we do not think it is useful to give the figures but I have outlined the principles and policies with regard to remuneration and appointment of key officers in service. By extension, the majority of our Principals and Vice Principals retired at substantive grade of their appointment or above their appointment.
I had been with the education service for 20 years and I feel that the current HR policy is not right from the employees' point of view. As a matter of principle, would MOE agree that education officers must be paid according to their job worth?
Madam, that is what I said in my reply.
Last question. Then, as a matter of good HR policy and not to be seen as underpaying its officers, can MOE consider changing its policy and promote education officers holding official appointments related to their core responsibility to the correct substantive grade within a reasonable timeframe, for example, three years from their official appointment? I personally have come across many cases of education officers who are still not at their correct substantive grade even after five years of holding that appointment.
Madam, we appoint officers who have performed well and who have the potential to hold higher grade jobs, and we give them the opportunity to exercise leadership and demonstrate their capabilities. So, depending again on their potential and performance, they will be promoted as necessary and be remunerated based on the worth of the job.
Mr Zainal Sapari, this is the last question.
Thank you, Madam. I believe when an officer is appointed to the appointment, he or she has demonstrated competency to hold that position and it should not be the other way around.
Madam, the fact that many officers have been appointed as principals and vice-principals indicates that they have the capability and the potential. How they perform in the job is another matter. So, again depending on the assessment of their potential and performance, they
Page: 20
may get promoted early or not that early, as assessed by their superiors. So, what we want to do is actually pay our officers accordingly based on their capabilities and the job grade that they are on and try to retain our good officers for as long as possible in service because, certainly, as a whole, our teaching force has contributed enormously to the education of our children and we want to make sure that this continues.
PAPERCUTS