The announcement that the newly appointed interim chairperson of the National Youth Council (NYC), Patience Masua, will earn N$100 000 per month for a three-month contract has ignited predictable outrage. Youth affiliates are questioning governance and priorities. Social media has been ablaze with indignation. Commentators ask how such a salary can be justified in a country where unemployment among young people remains stubbornly high. These concerns are valid and deserve scrutiny. Yet buried beneath the noise lies a deeper and far more dangerous national habit: Namibia’s persistent discomfort with rewarding talent, skill and leadership at competitive levels.
This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen it before. A former prime minister once publicly declared that heads of state-owned enterprises should not earn more than him. A sitting minister recently ridiculed a CEO for installing a shower and gym in their office building, as though basic workplace facilities for demanding executive roles were an unforgivable luxury. These episodes are not isolated. They reflect a deeply entrenched cultural reflex: when an individual is paid well, suspicion follows; when institutions invest in attracting skilled leadership, the public reacts with hostility. The result is a dangerous message to competent professionals, excellence will be punished by public resentment rather than celebrated.
Let us be clear. No one is arguing that public institutions should throw exorbitant salaries at unqualified individuals or reward incompetence. Indeed, the Namibian public is right to demand transparency, merit-based appointments and accountability. If an individual lacks the credentials or experience for a role, no salary can justify that mistake. But it is equally true that if a person possesses the expertise, leadership ability and integrity required to steer complex institutions, they must be compensated competitively. Otherwise, we doom ourselves to permanent mediocrity in public administration.
There is an uncomfortable truth we must confront: talent is global. Skilled professionals are not confined by borders. If Namibia insists on paying below-market rates for leadership roles while demanding world-class performance, our best minds will simply go elsewhere. Many already have. We lose engineers, medical specialists, financial experts and policy analysts to neighbouring countries and beyond. Then we wonder why our public enterprises struggle, why projects stall, and why governance fails. The answer is not mysterious. We cannot demand first-class results while offering third-class incentives.
The public sector’s current predicament illustrates this perfectly. Because competitive remuneration is politically unpopular, institutions settle for what they can afford, often second-rate officials with limited capacity to reform or innovate. This is not an insult to those individuals; it is an honest diagnosis of a system that undervalues excellence. Over time, the culture becomes self-perpetuating: mediocre leadership delivers mediocre results, reinforcing public mistrust in institutions, which in turn justifies further reluctance to invest in high-calibre professionals. It is a vicious cycle.
Another troubling aspect of this debate is how Namibians judge who “deserves” a salary. Too often, assessments are made from personal vantage points rather than objective evaluation. A teacher compares their salary to a CEO’s and feels cheated. A civil servant compares their pay to a board chair’s and feels outraged. These emotional reactions are understandable in a society grappling with inequality. But they are not a sound basis for national policy. Remuneration must correspond to responsibility, complexity of role, risk exposure and the market for those skills, not envy or populist sentiment.
It is also worth noting the contradiction in our expectations. When institutions fail, we demand better leadership. We want corruption rooted out, inefficiency eliminated and service delivery improved. Yet when attempts are made to recruit or retain capable professionals, we recoil at the price tag. We cannot have it both ways. If we want world-class governance, we must be prepared to pay for world-class leadership.
Of course, transparency remains essential. Public institutions must clearly communicate how salaries are determined, what performance measures exist and how appointments are made. Silence breeds suspicion. But public anger should not automatically translate into hostility towards fair compensation. Instead, it should fuel demands for merit-based hiring and performance contracts that justify the remuneration offered.
The debate sparked by the NYC interim chair’s salary should therefore serve as a mirror for Namibia’s broader attitude towards talent and reward. The real question is not simply whether N$100 000 per month is too high or too low. The real question is: do we want competent people to run our institutions, and if so, are we willing to pay the cost of competence?
If the answer is no, then we must accept the consequences, stagnation, underperformance and continual public disappointment. But if the answer is yes, then we must mature as a society. We must stop demonizing success, stop equating fair remuneration with greed, and start demanding value for money rather than cheap leadership.
Namibia stands at a crossroads. We can continue down the path of suspicion and populism, where every well-paid appointment is automatically treated as a scandal. Or we can choose a path of rational governance, where talent is recognised, fairly rewarded and held accountable for results. The future of our public institutions depends on this choice.
It is time for Namibians to rethink the relationship between skill, talent and reward. Excellence is not free. Competence is not cheap. And the cost of underpaying talent is far greater than any salary line in a budget.
