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