The veiled dangers of free leaders

FEBRUARY 16 — Pay me nothing.

Altruism is on the rise here in Malaysia. Candidates — for top jobs — increasingly justify their selection by offering to do the job for free.

It distracts from the ability or suitability of the candidate, and puts the emphasis on his voluntariness.

It started with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim in December, and now all types of advisers and ambassadors join the virtue queue to morally sanitise themselves via the altar of “Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.”

Without the need to single out familial and alumni relations of said persons, the appropriate question should be, is that the right thing to do?

The corollaries of the main inquiry break into these; do they function better without pay, are there other means to compensate for the role when fulfilling the role, and are the wealthy — which is a prerequisite to do it for free — keen to be wealthier?

Pay is essential to support those who are employed. However, while there are minimums, there is a chasm between what top earners and others earn. By which, private sector workers receive more for similar work completed by civil servants.

In theory, for instance, our health director-general earns less than the top executive of any elite pharmaceutical.

Serving the nation is regarded as the higher calling for that very reason. Also, the reason why the private sector attracts top-skilled government employees. Eventually idealism gives way to practical material needs.

But what about those who want no remuneration to serve the nation? Show up at work like those who are paid to do so — even if the pay is considerably lower than the private sector — and work just as hard.

The reasonable assumption, these unpaid volunteers are already wealthy, either by birth lottery or prior enterprise. They can provide for themselves while they hum around selflessly to save others.

There is one annoying possibility from it, they hold it over the rest. Lord about their self-sacrifice and placing others before themselves, far better than the rest.

We both do the same work, but I do it for love and you for pay.

Which grates. Even more when they highlight it. Which is benign at the start. It gets malicious when they use it as an excuse whenever mistakes or missteps occur.

Yes, bad work. But you know, I do it for free.

In Malaysia’s recent cases, it is additionally used to excuse previous behaviours or existing relationships.

There’s where the moral traps lie.

Pay sets expectation

There is also the danger in these unique situations the work contract is unenforceable since pay is absent.

Work must be met by pay — more importantly a fair price — in a contract, otherwise it is akin to slavery or indentured labour. No pay is not a fair price — no lawyer is necessary to interpret that.

US presidential pay is useful as a comparison.

The president brings home US$450,000 (RM2 million) annually despite it being a fraction of what top CEOs earn.

Mark Zuckerberg with a gargantuan company infiltrating all life on the connected planet makes US$12 billion a year.

Joe Biden, commander of the largest and most powerful military in the history of the species overseeing the health of global finances receives less than a drop of Mr Zuckerberg’s wage.

But Biden receives a fair price, even if not the best price. The president can choose to hand the money to a charity or blow it up with one hand at Vegas. Whatever he does — legally — with his own money is completely up to him.

However, he cannot go around claiming he is morally superior than other Americans for running the country for free.

This is important. Because it allows citizens the right to demand a return for the fair payment. Without prejudice.

The second part of the inquiry is harsh in bits. These are massively influential positions; head of secretariat to advise the PM, adviser to the prime minister, ambassador to the United States or even being prime minister.

Pay is essential to support those who are employed. ― Reuters pic

Therefore, to assume the candidate is safe because not paid for his services is naïve. The candidate can end up harming the nation. Or give a half-arsed solution to an issue which is life or death for those affected.

Government work is serious work. It is not the sort to walk away from when one is not in the mood. It is not the place to leave loose-cannons to wreak havoc, even if they promise to be cheap.

Let’s look at the ambassador position to Washington, DC.

Trade with the United States determines the well-being of all Malaysians, and as such Malaysians are not obsessed to save money, and send a FOC ambassador.

They would rather pay twice the regular ambassador salary if he can deliver great deals and advancements for Malaysia in its relationship with the country holding 24 per cent of the world’s GDP.

This leads to the final element in the inquiry, do rich people need more wealth?

Let’s go with yes. Malaysia has a former prime minister in prison to underscore this argument.

It is mad to assume that a wildly rich millionaire will steer well clear of opportunities while being in government because he already has too much. History teaches us repeatedly that the opposite is normally true.

Running a country, for free

Are there examples of altruism, something to compare our current trending leaders?

José Alberto “Pepe” Mujica Cordano was 75, just like Anwar, when he became Uruguay’s president in 2010.

He was a former guerrilla fighter who spent decades incarcerated or mounting an insurrection before shifting gears as an elected official for the next 20 years.

While president for five years, he continued to live in a hut with his wife and a three-legged pet dog. He donated almost all of his US$144,000 annual salary to charities during his term.

There are few Mujicas on Earth. It’s a slippery-slope when one claims to abjure pay but all other indicators in one’s life point to opulence.

It is better to take the salary and divvy it up to others but certainly not turn it into a spectacle.

Appropriate work needs appropriate pay, as said before, even if it is not amazing pay.

The refusal to take a salary creates distractions. From it compromising the contractual obligations of the office bearer to citizens morally nullified from questioning personnel because they took the role on a voluntary basis.

Key positions are full-time jobs and the pay underlines the practical expectation of time and devotion to the job.

The people of Malaysia do not expect free labour from their leaders. They desire great work but will settle for competent work. The focus should be on the work product, not that the labour is free.

* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.