PERKS

The government has explained that the bonuses which the officials of the Social Security System (SSS) have received are legally justified. No statute prohibits the P1 million performance bonus granted to each member of the Board of Trustees. Emilio De Quiros, Jr., the Executive Officer of the SSS, was even quoted to justify the grant as necessary since the system needs to compensate its officials well if it is to compete with the private sector in hiring competitive people. In other words, such “perks” make the SSS competitive with private social insurance companies.

Of course, the reasoning is flawed. No right thinking person can agree to that.  

So what if it is legally permissible? Does it give the SSS Board the right to appropriate P276 million worth of bonuses? 

In the first place, these officials are not chosen because of their supposed qualifications to hold an equivalent position in private companies. Members of the Board are chosen because they are supposed to represent the interest of the stakeholders in the SSS. The law provides for their representation. Their appointments have nothing to do with these professional qualifications. And secondly, the fund and its profits are not for them to squander. The SSS funds are intended for specific purpose that not even the President of the Philippines could touch the. As such, the SSS officials should not be so reckless in handling the funds entrusted to their care.

One wonders whether these officials are living in a different moral order. De Quiros’ moral justification fails in every conceivable moral maxim unless by some arbitrary machination we may be forced to believe that in this case, the end justifies the means. And even by this remote possibility, Machiavellian logic would likely reject such ethical re-formulation since the ends that the SSS has advanced is highly dubious and inexplicable.

            Under existing practice, political appointees to government-owned and controlled corporations normally enjoy some perks. These perks, (the term is beginning to sound more of “pork”), are extended to officials of these corporations to keep them in the public service and draw them away from the lure of fat salaries in private companies. Such idea is also flawed of course. It conveys the uncanny equation between luxuries and public service. In a country where the poor could not afford even the so-called free public education, luxuries—including occasional ones—for public officials are a scandal. And thus, any justification for “perks” in the name of public service fails, not only because of the inherent contradictions of these terms, but by simple logic as well. There is no such thing as sweet dreams in the middle of a nightmare. Awake or not, one simply could not believe that it exists even in a dream land.  

            So what is to be done to this anomalous practice of giving perks to public officials to keep them in the public service?

Abolish the perks, dismiss the officials. This is the only logical answer to the question. Contrary to the notion of some people, talents are not wanting in the bureaucracy and the rosters of government-owned and controlled corporations. Talents and geniuses are there. What is wanting is the political will that can discover and place them in their proper places. Bribes are not necessary to make them do their best. What public servants need is equitable and decent compensation that afford them dignified existence and assures good future for their love ones. Unlike those who have been appointed because of patronage and political affiliation, talented and dedicated public servants live by becoming living examples of the mandate of their position.