In economic jargon, sacrifice implies forgoing present consumption. For example, rational individuals normally sacrifice/save part of their current income for retirement. Sacrifice is legitimate if it is accompanied by a genuine purpose.

When a government asks the population for sacrifices, it usually implies that the finances of the government cannot sustain its expenditure. A responsible government would refrain from succumbing to irrational demands from trade unions because doing otherwise would jeopardise the future prosperity of the country.

From an objective point of view, the argument put forward by trade unionists (that the workers should not bear the burden for the economic mismanagement of the government) is debatable. The incompetence of governments cannot be used as an authentic argument simply because there is a cost attached to it.

Although the figures put forward in the press may be attractive, a trade unionist cannot genuinely and rationally demand a compensation which is higher than what the finances of the government can support. This is not to say that the government can afford to be incompetent. Incompetence is the evil of productivity and should be combated in all its forms. The annual tripartite salary negotiation may not simply be the proper battle field. Workers should be compensated, but the demands should be reasonable.

No matter how disturbing (but logical) the above analysis may sound to some, it does not answer the fundamental question : why should the population make sacrifices? I could use the same argument by saying that if the population does not make sacrifices now, their future prosperity would be undermined. But that would be shallow. (...)

When any finance minister asks the population for sacrifices, the population usually reacts with scepticism. This is because the population has been conned too many times (especially with regards to cases of corruption, financial largesse and various forms of incompetence reported in the press). The population knows the difficult economic situation the country faces. The population would willingly make sacrifices today if she knew she were doing it for the right reason. But it is extremely difficult to trust the political system given that the system has not been performing up to expectation.

The credibility of minister Sithanen as a respected professional may compensate for the lack of trust the population feels towards the political system. But minister Sithanen epitomises neither the government nor the political system. Sacrifice from the population would only be justifiable when the political system would understand that politics is not a popularity contest. Politicians, whether from the government or nor, have to realise that politics is about serving their country.(...)

Politics, if done properly, is not repugnant. However, the population cannot change the political system. Only politicians have the power to render politics a noble profession. This is why I am against the adage that the population gets the government she deserves. How can a population deserve something she barely has control upon? In a democracy, the population is confronted with a choice. But that does not mean she deserves the choice put before her.

by Ronnie TANG KWAN HOI (Singapore)