| Flying from Singapore to India last week, which meant from one salary controversy to another, was a reminder of those uniquely Indian status symbols that were justified as compensation for money long after they outlived all other utility. Official bungalows and peons are a drain on the exchequer; worse, they create an artificial halo around small men who strut around like gods. When I took off from Changi, Singaporeans were still arguing about whether ministerial emoluments need to be as high as those of chief executive officers. In other words, must Lee Hsien Loong, the prime minister, earn as much as (or more than) Ho Ching, his wife, who heads the giant Temasek Corporation which is investing massively in India? |
| In Delhi, Indians were salivating over the prime minister's criticism of astronomical CEO salaries and disapproval (echoing Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi) of conspicuous consumption. Would people feel cheated if, unlike the Hindujas, more tycoons follow the Mittals and celebrate weddings abroad? Should the rich salt their wealth away in the Bahamas to avoid offending local sensibilities and affect the ostentatious simplicity associated with G D Birla? |
| Philip Jeyaretnam, a bright young lawyer whose famous father was Singapore's first opposition MP and who is himself president of the Law Society, draws a moral link between the two controversies. Singapore's "emphasis on money," he argues, might "undercut volunteerism and the spirit of public service." Comparing the two judiciaries, Jeyaretnam also quotes the daughter of a former Indian Supreme Court judge who was shocked when asked if the income gap between the public and private sectors causes difficulties. Income makes no difference to the "tremendous respect" which she and her family always receive. |
| That provoked K Shanmugam, a ruling People's Action Party loyalist, to jump into the fray claiming that "low official pay had eroded the reputation of the judiciary in India." It's not something Singapore can risk. "The decisions of judges affect lives, liberty and commerce," Shanmugam declared. "A first rate judiciary is one of the key essentials for a commercial centre like Singapore to thrive." |
| No one""not even Manmohan Singh""expects volunteerism or public service from the Reliance or Infosys boss. But MPs and ministers are another matter in countries that have inherited the English ethic""to which even Lalu Prasad is heir!""that politicians are in it not for what they can get out of it but for what they can put into it. This is a relic of the tradition of aristocrats governing England like their estates and expecting no prize for doing what they were born to do. Philip Jeyaretnam harked back to that era when he wrote that the pay rise was a "shift from an attempt to reward contribution to government and country to an attempt to estimate what he or she would otherwise have earned in the private sector". Many Singaporean politicians were businessmen before joining politics. Many go into business after politics. Those choices don't arise here. As the late Piloo Mody would say, an Indian who is so unemployable that he can't even be a journalist enters politics and becomes a legislator. Concerned about judicial integrity falling because of poor emoluments, the English and American chief justices have also urged the need to close the gap between public and private sector salaries. In none of these countries""Singapore, England and the US""are judges treated like national icons. |
| It's different here. I knew a high court judge who took her liveried chaprasi to cocktail parties. Another would answer the telephone, 20 years after retiring, with a sonorous "Chief Justice So-and-so speaking!" A third demanded a revolving red light on his car, a small Maruti at that. A fourth succeeded in being allocated a large three storeyed house with armed guards, PWD maintenance and a marble plaque proclaiming it was the chief justice's residence. Some insist on being addressed as "My lord" even outside the courtroom. They have become so grand that when a judge cycled to court, the durwans wouldn't let him enter. It's not judges alone. These appurtenances of rank""bungalows, jeeps, cars, personal pennants and other insignia that branded our imperial rulers""were partly to remind us natives of the superiority of the master race. Of course, they also saved the Brits money and hassles. |
| I am not questioning legitimate security requirements. I also realise that dismantling armies of peons is fraught with hazards. But neither exonerates indigenous post-independence civil servants who kept what already existed and grabbed more. They argued that perks were in lieu of adequate pay. Now they get both adequate pay and perks. So do judges, MPs and ministers. Yet, they cling to what in the commercial world used to be called expatriate benefits. Indeed, not-so-fringe benefits make expatriates of home-grown leaders. Leaving aside Singapore, I am all for Manmohan Singh's advice of restraint to extravagant CEOs. But for that advice to be logical, government functionaries must first sacrifice privileges that should have ended with the British Raj. Let them be paid enough for their housing as in Singapore while the government makes good money renting out its bungalows. |
Top Section
Explore Business Standard