Dizzying salaries

Dizzying salaries

The Jakarta Post Nov. 4, 1994 issue reported on its first page
that, in Singapore, government ministers' annual salaries would
raise from S$600,000 to S$800,000. The Straits Times Nov. 1, 1994
tells us the median income of all Singaporeans is S$1,500 per
month viz S$18,000 per year.

Undeterred, Singapore made its case for high salaries with its
usual energy and passion. Yet in light of the yawning disparity,
and unabashed push for high salaries, the debate seemed somewhat
surreal.

Singapore regards its decisions, to energize public persons by
the cold measure of money, as a watershed. As epoch making as the
invention of the atomic bomb, so destructive yet so effective in
securing world peace. Similarly, money, the root of all evil, can
usher in Eldorado. As cataclysmic as the fall of communism, the
utter absence of money, and the stuffiness of its political elite
gave it drabness and death. Contrarily, the fragrance of money
and the sizzle of economic elitism, gives sunshine and
prosperity. In short, money is the new God that cannot fail.
Singapore is so convinced it expects other countries to follow
suit.

Ostensibly, high salaries are meant to be a cure, a counter,
for abounding temptations in the midst of which a minister works.
But can money, a notorious corruptor, beget rectitude? And the
Government, identifying itself with the trendy money-making
fashion and jumping into the pit in a copy-cat fashion, can
unwittingly side with ugly forces that would make the big fish
bigger and the pond smaller.

How much is enough? Singapore has put on a neat cap. How many
countries can do this without acrimony, or is it that easy? Take
Adam and Eve. They had the Garden of Eden, luscious, rich and
beautiful. Yet they transgressed, seeking more. So, no increase
will ever satisfy one who craves abundance.

Economists have told us that resources are scarce and all
religions are appealed to, to share the resources justly. So
just-sharing should be the goal, at least for governments of poor
and struggling countries. But, if people are not drawn to this
ideal but become bionic only to get rich -- a success without any
triumph -- that would make politics sterile and hopeless, and
governing would be a mere sharing of spoils. Such governing,
devoid of idealism, would lack moral authority. It could not ask
people to accept hardships, or send young men to war. To die for
what?

The bottom line of a democratic government is: "the greatest
happiness of the greatest number." It is a must that ministers be
part of the greatest number, not a microscopic minority housed
in an ivory-tower. Yet rulers should be uncommon commoners, for
as kings, they must have kingship. And kingship is not an item on
a shelf for sale. Therefore, only those who are immune to market
forces and temptations of opportunity earnings should become
ministers. They may be rare but that does not mean the
prescription is faulty or unworkable. In short, they should be
looked up as icons; not seen as gross and mercenary.

So the Singapore model could be regarded as an attempt to
achieve political egalitarianism through economic elitism. In
many countries the medicine may seem more dangerous than the
ailment.

G.S. EDWIN

Jakarta