Transparency and President's salary


First of all about the reasons why I consider it natural to present my income to the public. Dangerous problems are noticeable in Estonia's salary policy. The young having acquired proficiency in the public sector leave for the private business where they will be paid ten times more. A trend to mediocrity is prevailing in the public sector. On the other hand, I am at a loss reading professor Uno Mereste's argument: ''In many countries it is bad habits to inquire about salary'' (Postimees, 17.04.98).

It is not the truth in its entirety. In Nordic countries income as well as taxes paid are public. You can call to Helsinki tax authorities and ask how much your friend-entrepreneur or the Prime Minister of Finland earned last year and how much he paid taxes. Bank deposits are an exception. Openness applies both to public servants as well as to the private sector. The Nordic countries do not see any danger to the competitiveness of the company in transparency.

Germany as well as some other Central European countries consider such transparency Orwel's model of restriction of human rights. There are some essential discrepancies with Estonia's practice as well there. Public officials, ministers or members of the parliament belonging to supervision boards of companies with state participation (e.g. Lufthansa, Daimler-Benz, etc.) reimburse to the state the income received from the company. The logic is strict: as public officials or members of the parliament they are ex officio obliged to represent the state interest in the company not vice versa. The observance of obligations to the people cannot be a source of additional income. Salaries in the public sector are significantly below those in the private sector in Germany but it is compensated by the prestige of the public office. Competition to a vacancy in the state sector is 1 to 5, requirements merciless, you get the job only once.

Comparing the transparency of Nordic countries with the non-transparency of Central European countries, the small size of the Nordic countries could be an underlying reason. In countries where everybody knows everybody, legalised transparency would create a more favourable social climate. No doubt, there is envy in the Nordic countries as well, but publicly known very high salaries for the top executives in schools, universities and elsewhere are highly motivating with education becoming the decisive factor.

I think that Estonia is facing a choice now whether to stick to the current model or switch to the Nordic transparency. The choice is not easy, both options have deficiencies. I personally think that the Nordic transparency would deepen mutual confidence and, first and foremost, fortify trust between the state and the people. We could begin from making transparent the income in the public sector.

Well said, well done. My and Helle's (she is not paid) gross salary was 252,000 kroons (17,548.75 $*) in 1997 and the income tax - 62,960 kroons (4,384.40 $); the interest from the deposit - 1,983.24 kroons (138,07 $) and the income tax - 198.- kroons (13.78 $); royalties 2,791.90 kroons (194.73 $) and the income tax 960.- kroons (66.80 $). Our total income was 256,775.14 kroons (17,876.79 $) in 1997. In my current office I have deposited 168,620 kroons (11,739.40 $) in the bank. Soon I am going to apply for a housing loan. I have no shares neither do I work on any board. My health is good.


Lennart Meri



___________________________________________________

* quoted by the exchange rate of Eesti Pank as of April 27, 1998

back | archive of statements | main page