Arising from the proposed ministerial salary cut, there is this comment by Eugene Tan of SMU, that ‘Often, as in the private sector, you get what you paid for.’ This linkage of monetary value to the intrinsic value that comes with a person’s service, work, or the quality of a product can be misleading.
Not everyone who makes a lot of money is a super talent. Many gamblers make more money than the smartest academics. Making money is a different skill set and depends on many variables. Some don’t need any talent to be making plenty of money or living a life of plenty.
The other linkage that is often misleading is the interchangeability of skills. A top surgeon will naturally be a good national leader. Or a top soldier will automatically be a good ministers. You can stretch this to every profession and the answer is obvious. The different skills and talents required in different profession can be totally irrelevant to the job of a politician. It has been proven that a too clever politician can be a liability instead.
The other disadvantage of attracting talents by virtue of their success in their chosen field to go to politics can be the loss of both professions when the former profession lost an excellent professional who ended up as a mediocre politician. It is true, a fact.
There is no direct correlation between a high income earner and his ability to become a good political leader or a good national leader. Bring in a top notch gambler or thief and he would probably apply his gambling skills to run the country or steal from the country.
You don’t always get what you paid for. This is a fallacy that does not need any proving. Very often than not, a person who is motivated by making more money and can only be attracted by money, is a bad choice to lead the country. And using money to lure people into politics is already a big mistake.