Dear Editor,

I read Lisa Hanna’s insightful two-part series, ‘A Tale of two Jamaica’s’, in the Jamaica Observer in which she justified the increases to politicians.

Sometime ago, Hanna also wrote ‘You get what you pay for’, referencing the low salaries paid to politicians. While I agree with her on several points, I have issues with some.

Hanna says we cannot cite a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in a debate about salaries or argue based on size of an organisation or affordability, yet she mentions a rich country like Singapore in the column, along with Barbados, to show that their prime ministers are well paid.

Jamaica is definitely not on the level of Singapore, which boasts the highest-paid prime minister in the world. Singapore has twice the size of Jamaica’s population, and its GDP per capita is also among the highest in the world. Of course, they can afford to pay substantial salaries as their economy is performing.

Barbados is more relevant to us, their GDP per capita income is among the highest in the region. Despite having a small population, they are well governed and have a high adult literacy rate, close to 100 per cent; good health care and social services; and almost zero poverty. Barbados can also afford to pay their politicians well.

Hanna also spoke about market forces determining salaries, but is there a market for political jobs? The number of political jobs are very limited and largely fixed, there is no demand or supply influencing political salaries. Salaries in other sectors can be used to guide, but they are not a benchmark. Hanna used examples of earnings of lawyers to highlight the relatively low salaries of politicians. We cannot compare lawyers who are based in the private sector and have the flexibility to charge significant fees to clients based on market rates and the high demand for their expertise.

Hanna also compared earnings of CEOs in private corporations with politicians. The private and public sectors will never overlap in terms of salaries and operations. They are completely different sectors; the private sector exists for profit. Private sector employees, including CEOs, are recruited through competitive searches influenced by job markets, industry trends, global factors, and most importantly, profit. A private organisation will not pay a CEO $100 million per year without justifying the return on investment. Every job in the sector is rationalised in terms of profit. Most politicians aren’t even qualified to function as CEOs, so how can we link their salaries?

I must ask Hanna about the governor general’s (GG) new salary of $34 million, which is now in line with the salary of the GG of Canada, a First World country with a population 13 times bigger than Jamaica. Jamaica’s head of State will be among the highest paid in the entire Caribbean, earning three to four times more than his or her counterparts.

Size matters, even in organisations, as it is indicative of the level of responsibilities, which vary with size and complexity of operations. Hanna also compared salaries of heads of executive agencies, which surpasses the prime minister’s earnings. What she didn’t do was to highlight the many benefits the prime minister receives as part of his package, in addition to payroll. Benefits have value too and are part of the compensation.

Again, I am not suggesting that the prime minister should not be paid well, but it must be within the context of the bigger picture. Most Jamaicans live in poverty and many workers struggle to live. It is, therefore, hard to grasp the idea that we get what we pay for when there is no evidence that the prime minister and others are underperforming due to low pay. Despite Hanna’s very low salary, which was quoted, she is still ranked as one of the more productive Members of Parliament and seems to have a strong passion for service and helping people.

The prime minister and team should’ve strategised a more effective way to communicate and implement the massive increases over time and provided logical justification for same. The best option now is to order a full, independent review of the increases and make adjustments as necessary. The public might be more accepting of increases after a final review.

P Chin

chin_p@yahoo.com