CORPORATE EMOLUMENTS are the (rather sour) flavour of the moment.
In earlier times, among Westerners, it was considered the height of ill-breeding to discuss, let alone ask anyone his salary.
But nearer home in the East, the first question an Indian would likely ask, and quite bluntly, would be "How much are you getting?"
Perhaps that would be his yardstick to assess the individual's social standing.
Anyway the fact remains that, for better or worse, the Indian prototype has effectively displaced the Colonial model in Singapore today, and one's worth is judged by his/her earnings, or perceived wealth.
Our colourful Singlish phrase 'no money no talk' paraphrased from the dialect sums up the situation neatly.
In its earliest days, corporate culture here was 'good pay to do a good job' but eventually it evolved to 'being rewarded adequately (read amply) for doing your job'.
It was in the mid-1990s that the phrase 'pay peanuts and you will get only monkeys' came to be freely bandied around, together with the credo that high emoluments were essential to attract the best talent, as well as ensure a corruption-free culture.
A by-product of this new mantra was that questioning high payouts was 'the politics of envy. (A cynical wag up-staged with 'if you dangle carrots, you will as surely attract donkeys').
The combination of the hunt for 'Meritocracy' and edging into 'Plutocracy' could be said to be largely contributary to the emergence of huge (later to be commonly described as 'obscene') emoluments in the corporate sector. This spilled over into the public sector as well, where the argument was that high-level public servants/adminisrators needed to be paid comparably as much as those in the private sector to restrain them from 'crossing over'.
Rumblings at AGMs
Chairman: "Do you want me to work for free?"
Recent reports suggest that shareholders everywhere are up in arms over what they perceive are excessive emoluments to select 'captains of industry'.at least where Public Listed Companies are concerned.
But in fact, these rumblings have been around in Singapore itself from long back.
I was present at one AGM when a small shareholder pleaded forlornly to the chairman "You get so much, give us also something lah!"
And on another occasion, after the meeting had ended, I was within earshot when another shareholder asked the chairman whose emoluments were in the seven-figure bracket "Don't you think the remuneration is excessive?" to which he replied suavely "Do you want me to work for free?" (he was also incidentally chairman of another Public Listed Company in the same 'stable').
It is perhaps time there is greater recognition, than just mere lip-service, to the fact that Joint-stock companies belong to share-holders, who are entitled to more than occasional token dividends.
In recognition of the efforts of those who are employed in such enterprises, ideally a certain percentage of after-tax profits could be reserved to be divided/distributed among such employees in some equitable proportion, leaving the rest for shareholders.
Even if, for whatever reason, such a proposal may not find ready acceptance on a global scale, there is no reason why it should not be introduced in Singapore, and even mandatorily if need be.
Inequitable distribution of profits, and in particular over-generous (read 'obscene') remuneration packages to a 'chosen few' individuals, no matter how upmarket, can only end up with discontent throughout any organisation, and eventually vitiate all attempts to run it as a cohesive unit.
There is the even greater danger that employees who feel 'left out in the cold' will devise ways and means to make up for any perceived 'shortfall' they feel entitled to from their personal viewpoint.
As for the argument that paying well/generously keeps people on the 'straight and narrow path' there seems to be plenty of evidence around to suggest the contrary.
Had Tolstoy lived to the present day, he may well be compelled to ask "How much money does an individual need?"