Eis a notícia. Trata-se de Taiwan. Agora, o divertido trecho:
The Presidential Office and the Cabinet yesterday rejected calls for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and other high-ranking officials to cut their monthly salaries, saying they were worried it risked setting a precedent that could spill over to the private sector, offsetting government efforts to stimulate public spending.
Several Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Wednesday proposed following Singapore’s lead by pushing for salary cuts for civil servants during the economic downturn.
Singapore’s Public Service Division said on Monday that top government officials, including Singaporean President S.R. Nathan, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (李顯龍), administrative officers and political, judicial and statutory appointees would see their salaries drop by between 11 percent and 19 percent next year.
Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) yesterday said he believed such an action would have a negative impact.
Wang acknowledged Singapore’s plans to cut the payrolls of government officials and US president-elect Barack Obama’s call for chief executive officers of financial institutions to forego bonuses.
However, Taiwan’s problem was that the public was unwilling to spend money, thereby, worsening an already bleak economic situation, he said.
To tackle the problem, Wang said, the Executive Yuan has announced several measures aimed at stimulating consumption.
He said the Presidential Office was worried widespread salary cuts might have a negative impact on the private sector and the public as a whole.
“The worst-case scenario is that the efficiency of the government’s economic stimulus plan would be diminished, including consumer vouchers,” he said. “That is what worries us.”
A high-ranking official, who asked to remain anonymous, said the issue smacked of “populism” and that it was the consensus of the government and party that “it was an issue that did not deserve any more discussion.”
Entendeu, leitor? Como há uma crise mundial e como a moda é dizer que falta de dinheiro não pode se traduzir em sacrifícios dos representantes do setor público (porque isto poderia se expandir até o setor privado???), então não se pode deixar de receber o polpudo salário, claro, com lágrimas de crocodilo nos olhos.
Eis aí como o keynesianismo de quermesse – na feliz definição do Alexandre Schwartsman – ajuda a quem menos precisa de dinheiro. Alguém realmente acredita que o setor privado seguiria o setor público neste exemplo?