Dizzying salaries<\/p>\n
The Jakarta Post Nov. 4, 1994 issue reported on its first page
\nthat, in Singapore, government ministers' annual salaries would
\nraise from S$600,000 to S$800,000. The Straits Times Nov. 1, 1994
\ntells us the median income of all Singaporeans is S$1,500 per
\nmonth viz S$18,000 per year.<\/p>\n
Undeterred, Singapore made its case for high salaries with its
\nusual energy and passion. Yet in light of the yawning disparity,
\nand unabashed push for high salaries, the debate seemed somewhat
\nsurreal.<\/p>\n
Singapore regards its decisions, to energize public persons by
\nthe cold measure of money, as a watershed. As epoch making as the
\ninvention of the atomic bomb, so destructive yet so effective in
\nsecuring world peace. Similarly, money, the root of all evil, can
\nusher in Eldorado. As cataclysmic as the fall of communism, the
\nutter absence of money, and the stuffiness of its political elite
\ngave it drabness and death. Contrarily, the fragrance of money
\nand the sizzle of economic elitism, gives sunshine and
\nprosperity. In short, money is the new God that cannot fail.
\nSingapore is so convinced it expects other countries to follow
\nsuit.<\/p>\n
Ostensibly, high salaries are meant to be a cure, a counter,
\nfor abounding temptations in the midst of which a minister works.
\nBut can money, a notorious corruptor, beget rectitude? And the
\nGovernment, identifying itself with the trendy money-making
\nfashion and jumping into the pit in a copy-cat fashion, can
\nunwittingly side with ugly forces that would make the big fish
\nbigger and the pond smaller.<\/p>\n
How much is enough? Singapore has put on a neat cap. How many
\ncountries can do this without acrimony, or is it that easy? Take
\nAdam and Eve. They had the Garden of Eden, luscious, rich and
\nbeautiful. Yet they transgressed, seeking more. So, no increase
\nwill ever satisfy one who craves abundance.<\/p>\n
Economists have told us that resources are scarce and all
\nreligions are appealed to, to share the resources justly. So
\njust-sharing should be the goal, at least for governments of poor
\nand struggling countries. But, if people are not drawn to this
\nideal but become bionic only to get rich -- a success without any
\ntriumph -- that would make politics sterile and hopeless, and
\ngoverning would be a mere sharing of spoils. Such governing,
\ndevoid of idealism, would lack moral authority. It could not ask
\npeople to accept hardships, or send young men to war. To die for
\nwhat?<\/p>\n
The bottom line of a democratic government is: \"the greatest
\nhappiness of the greatest number.\" It is a must that ministers be
\npart of the greatest number, not a microscopic minority housed
\nin an ivory-tower. Yet rulers should be uncommon commoners, for
\nas kings, they must have kingship. And kingship is not an item on
\na shelf for sale. Therefore, only those who are immune to market
\nforces and temptations of opportunity earnings should become
\nministers. They may be rare but that does not mean the
\nprescription is faulty or unworkable. In short, they should be
\nlooked up as icons; not seen as gross and mercenary.<\/p>\n
So the Singapore model could be regarded as an attempt to
\nachieve political egalitarianism through economic elitism. In
\nmany countries the medicine may seem more dangerous than the
\nailment.<\/p>\n
G.S. EDWIN<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/dizzying-salaries-1447902657", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }