Presidential Salary and Corruption

The newly elected president of the Republic of the Philippines happily showed his first pay check dated 31st of July 2010 as the chief executive of the country amounting to about $1,986.  In a year, the Philippine president can expect to receive around $24,000.  Of course, this figure is not inclusive of perks and benefits that go with the position.  His country is – at least, under the presidency of his predecessor – the second most corrupt country in the Southeast Asia.

The annual pay of the Prime Minister of Singapore has surprised even the White House.  Lee Hsien Loong, since the end of 2008, has been receiving $2.05 million per year – which is five times more than Barack Obama’s that is currently $400,000 yearly or $33,333 monthly.   Prime Minister Lee receives more or less $170,833 per month.  And, Singapore is among the cleanest – that is, corruption free – countries in the world.

There are at least two general items that have been made so far relative to leaders and the pay that they receive.  Firstly, what has been strictly determined by scientific studies is the direct correlation between economic efficiency and wealth and the professionalism and salaries of civil servants and elected officials.  Michael Backman, an Australian economist, author and Asia watcher, maintained that if paying peanuts gets one monkeys.  And monkeys are not decision makes. 

The second point is emphasized by Joseph Cheng, a political analyst at City University in Hong Kong.  He held that satisfactory remuneration is prerequisite to combat corruption.  Common sense, according to him, would tell that if one can’t make ends meet then the temptation to receive bribes is high. 

This brings to mind the Philippines again.  The predecessor of Pres. Aquino received a salary lower than what the current chief executive of the country does.  And, to use the vulgar and unparliamentary description of her by a progressive Filipino lawmaker, Rep. Walden Bello, corruption is the trademark of Arroyo’s governance.

Arroyo’s predecessor Joseph Estrada was convicted for plundering $80 million during just thirty months in power. 

Of course, Estrada pales in comparison to Ferdinand Marcos.  The former strongman and Martial Law president amassed billions of dollars over two decades. 

But, does it really automatically mean that low salary leads to corruption? 

Nelson Navarro, a Filipino political commentator, cannot reconcile small salary with the imperial lifestyle that Filipino presidents are supposed to lead.  To his judgment, these salaries are unrealistic, laughable and hypocrisy. 

An Indonesian Corruption Watch official, Danang Widoyoko, thinks along the same line.  He maintained that low wages are one of the factors encouraging corruption.

According to Srinivasa Madhur, an economist of the Manila-based Asian Development Bank, paying huge salaries does not necessarily stop corruption.  But, it certainly would be an incentive for civil servants not to indulge in corruption.  For, realistically, legal and institutional deterrents must also be in place.

This is agreed on by Eiichi Kato, a social engineering professor of Tsukuba University in Japan.  He observed that in Japan bureaucrats avoid corruption because if they are caught cheating they will be deprived of not only their jobs but also their handsome severance pays.