For advertisement



myth 42

'Paying high salaries, but with a cap, is good' How can I call this a myth? The justification for such a policy of paying high salaries to public office holders is to prevent corruption at high places. Then why is this no good? Yes it is no good, but not because it does not prevent the ills of corruption. There is no corruption at high places. It is no good because it puts a cap on the real income of super talented individuals. It is very unfair to restrain what a supertalent can earn by articificially limiting it with a cap, by pegging it against some subjective numbers. And then we tell these talents that they are doing national service, and that they must sacrifice for the country. Now you see how unfair this policy is. And all the supertalents would have to apologise to their wives and kids that they could not afford the additional resort bungalows in Europe, US or Australia because there is a cap on what they could make in the private sector. Hopefully they don't fill too bad about being shortchanged. Or else they would not be doing their very best. Put it the other way, men of integrity and honesty will not be corrupted even if they are paid less. And if we pay them their true worth, their market value, they will be so motivated that they could move mountains. And it is only fair that they received their due rewards. Then when they have made their billions, one day they might woke up and said, what the shit do I need $50 billions for when $1 billlion they could not even finish using. And they might donate $30 billions to a trust to help the unfortunate. And we can have a few Warren Buffetts and Bill Gates among us! See, artificially capping the income of supertalents is bad. It is artificial and restrictive and unfair to the incumbent. It does not reward talents fully. It shortchanged the talents. It is against the philosophy of paying people their worth, their market value.


Anonymous said...

This 'pay-ourselves-high-salaries' policy is itself corruption of the highest degree. What makes it more despicable is that the law is actually being used to legitimise the corruption.

redbean said...

you may call it despicable as a personal opinion. but to call it corruption, that is legally incorrect as everything is passed in parliament and aboveboard. this part is totally transparent.

look at durai's case, if all his salaries and perks were approved by the bod, he is technically free from any wrongdoings. the wrongdoing part is his bod, if it can be proven.

Anonymous said...

Exactly. It is totally transparent corruption but nevertheless, still corruption.

redbean said...

the thing about public opinion is that everyone sees thing differently and is entitled to his own opinion. one party can vow and swear that he is an angel. but in the eyes of another party, he could be the worst of the devil.

it is all a matter of perception and no one is really or exactly right or wrong in such matters. even the court of law may pronounce a party right when that party is as guilty as a being caught red handed.

Anonymous said...

justice is blind because jury and judges are human. for the religious, there is always the matter of having to account for one's sins when one goes to make his Maker. that is where he will get his just desserts.

redbean said...

i am not sure about the maker. but what jesus said, what you sow you shall reap is similar to karma. this is the natural justice that no one can run away from.

but then again, who knows?