We could all end up paying for the civil servants' party

I raised concerns on their [civil servants'] behalf but I got very little support from the major parties ... So civil servant unions were very disappointed, and they realised it's really time that they should have their own representatives.

Regina Ip, chairwoman, The New Same-Old-Has-Beens Party, SCMP, March 21

And this complaint that senior civil servants had to take a small pay cut last year was made in the same interview in which Regina said: 'We are more concerned with improving the business environment ... than protecting the interests of individual sectors.'

But maybe just a teensy-eensy-weensy little bit concerned with protecting a certain sector, Regina? Perhaps it might be the one from which you came? How unusual it would be for a political party to protect its own.

Let's put civil service pay into perspective. The last time it was properly done was in 2003 in a comprehensive survey by human resources consultants Watson Wyatt, commissioned by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. It showed that on a like-for-like basis, taking pay and perks together, civil servants were 229 per cent better paid than their closest private sector counterparts. For the upper ranks, the disparity was even greater. I repeat, 229 per cent more than, which means 3.29 times as much as people who do not feed at the public trough.

These findings were so embarrassing to the government that both Watson Wyatt and the chamber of commerce felt themselves compelled to ... ahem ... interpret ... the figures by stressing non-perks pay and pretending that any civil servant is worth more than a private sector counterpart. Stands to reason, you know. But the full findings were still published.