Lets deal first with GINI strictly based on dispersion. The dispersion of wealth in any socio-economic group is a multi-factorial matters some of which has its roots in the law of the land, migration/emigration, demography, governmental socio-economic policies, transfer payments, social safety nets which are likely to me more controllable over the horizon than factors like societal stratification,religion and commonly accepted moral mores. This list is not exhaustive lest my more scholarly colleagues strike me with their pen before I can begin. Let's first agree that a GINI coefficient of 0 is not tenable in any society including communal and communistic regimes nor is 1 acceptable as it is likely to result in anarchy mostly sooner than later. The answer is nether the mid-point 0.5 as each socio-economic grouping have different ideas on what it acceptable starting from 0 and also different threshold towards 1 before anarchy happens.
Secondly, lets attempt to thread the minefield of the more complex issue of equality and inequality. Dispersion measures the distribution of the fruits of labour without consideration of variability of efforts by individual in producing the fruits. These variability can be a result of more controllable elements like personal effort, education, foresight, equal opportunities etc. Thereafter the more tricky less controllable elements like demography, race, religion, migration/immigration, inheritance, intellect and congenital disabilities. I do not want to pretend to have an iota of how to define equality, what equalizers we can put in place and how far do we want to equalize the opportunities but not the outcome as each of us have to be responsible for our outcome to some extent. This affects people at both ends of the wealth spectrum and the sandwich class more to a greater extend
I sincerely hope that the committee looking into this would attempt to consider these factors. Their task is not an easy one as it is not a formulae to be dealt with but a multitude of complex issues. At first, I had a sense of shame as a Singaporean when it was announced that Gerard Ee was appointed by the PM to tackle this issue as at the back of my mind, no or not many countries have seen a need to do so. Politicians are supposedly in it wholly if not partly out of altruistic reasons but I am mindful that monetary dimension of the reward have to be enough for them to lead an acceptable level of living and not be aptly tempted to corruption. However, I also subscribe that if politicians have a tendency towards corruption, no amount of monetary reward is enough for this group. When Paul Getty one of the richest man of his era was interviewed at his death bed on what is enough, his answer was just a little bit more. However, great politicians like Ghandi was never motivated by the rewards but on the converse, it was the hardship that motivated him to do greater things.
Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.