Paolo Kernahan
RECOMMENDATIONS for wage increases for the PM and other government officials were always going to be a hard sell, even in the best circumstances…which is the opposite of where we are now.
There have been quite a few notable voices, though, in favour of the SRC’s recommendations which will gild the pensions and departures of several career underachievers.
It’s been argued that the offices held by the PM and other cabinet placeholders are comparable in scope to the responsibilities of some CEOs in the private sector. There is, however, one crucial distinction omitted here. CEOs accept attractive compensation knowing that profit targets must be met, turnarounds achieved, and efficiencies implemented.
If stated objectives aren’t realised within a specific time frame, those high-paid CEOs are shown the door. Large, profit-centred companies don’t wait five years to pass judgement either.
Then there’s the notion of higher wages attracting quality candidates for public office. That argument doesn’t fly for several reasons.
The elevation of “talent” to ministerial positions is a political process; prospective candidates are screened to contest seats. These are the square pegs who typically go on to hold ministerial portfolios, yet they’re selected for party loyalty and relative attractiveness to clueless voters. Your main talent, with rare exceptions, must be electability and fealty.
Moreover, there are several case studies of how political culture reacts to talent. Dr Terrence Farrell quit the Economic Development Advisory Board to which he was appointed because he “...held no illusions that all its recommendations would be translated into policy.” Farrell was frustrated by the slothful nature of the public service, as are we all.
Robert Le Hunte with his IDB pedigree and more degrees than a thermometer ditched the portfolio of public utilities because of “...professional conflict on policy decisions.” The political machine has no use for talent, innovative thinking or professionalism.
With all the humility he could muster (which couldn’t fill a bottle cap), the PM accepted the SRC’s recommendations. He says his government has done very well; the signs are there “for those with eyes to see.”
The murder toll is galloping towards 600, coupled with 24/7 criminal predation across the country, enduring economic stagnation, and a worsening forex crisis – those who can’t see these naked realities either have selective myopia or need to change their eye specialist.
Rowley was asked how he could justify accepting considerable wage increases after telling the population to “hold the fort” – that things will be difficult until 2027. His responses were a mixed bag of non sequiturs, irrelevancies and contestable assertions.
He cited this government’s 15 per cent increase for public servants in their first term in office. How should that be interpreted? We paid y’all so it’s time we get ours! This is a nonsensical justification as the system of reward for nothing other than the increasing cost of
