There's one huge difference however between the numbers of public servants in Singapore and New Zealand.... they include local body employees as public servants for the stats while NZ treats LB employees as a separate category.
So how does this effect the numbers? 60,000 people out of the 158,000 mentioned above work for local councils (so wouldn't be used in the public service number for NZ) meaning a proper comparison would be that 1.6% of the population of Singapore are consisted public servants as NZ measures them compared to 1.2% of the population of NZ.
Or if you want to adjust the figures to include local council workers like they do in Singapore, they have 2.6% compared to NZ's 2.3%.... (63,000 PS + 58,000 LB) / NZ population x 100.
Since 2017, the public service has increased by 32%, the proposed change would decrease it by 12%, meaning it would still have increased 20% over the 2017 figure. By comparison, the NZ population rose by 10%.
And while we're comparing Singapore to NZ, if we were to drop the number of people in the NZ public health system to match the number in Singapore's public health sector, it would go down from 100,500 people currently employed in that sector to 58,000.
And in education, there is just under 80,000 people employed in the public education sector in Singapore compared to 150,000, so we would have to lose nearly half the sector.
Put it another way, including local body employees as they do in Singapore). 1 in 26 (6.1m / 235K state employees) people in Singapore works for the state sector of the country. In NZ, 1 in 12 (5.3m / 440K state employees) people works for the state sector (not including contractors). That means, if we want to match Singapore, half of all government employees would have to go. Maybe, getting rid of 8,700 instead of over 200,000 isn't to bad after all.
So maybe it's best not to think we should be following Singapore's example!!!