Recent remarks by President Chandrika Kumaratunga about the size of the government's pension bill together with press reports that the World Bank has been making noises about at least changing the current pension scheme have triggered the predictable response from pensioners scenting the possibility of their benefits being endangered. Given that there is every sign of an election round the corner, all pensioners can rest assured that they are certainly not at risk in the short term. In fact, they are very well placed to extract promises both from the present rulers as well as those who hope to form the government that pensions will not be tinkered with.

But there is no escaping the reality that the government service pension scheme begun by the colonial rulers has rapidly assumed proportions that the country just cannot afford. The pension was the carrot that made government service most attractive in the colonial days as well as in the early years of Independence. While this is no longer true, and government service is not the be all and end all of the ambitions of young people graduating from the universities or coming into a job market at a lower level, the fact remains that the pensions paid by government to its retired employees is the only effective social security safety net that many older people in our society enjoy.

According to official figures, there are 348,000 pensioners in the government's books. If this figure is rounded at 300,000, generously assuming that about 50,000 will not be driven to destitution without their pensions, there are still that many families comprising largely of elderly people who keep body and soul together because of their pensions. These are admittedly insufficient to cope with the ever-increasing cost of living. Also, those who retired some years ago at much lower salaries than the equivalent government jobs now pay, get the thin end of the wedge. They cannot be blamed for feeling that they are being treated unjustly and inequitably.

While all this is true, the exchequer cannot afford an ever-growing pension bill which the president recently told the Sri Lanka Administrative Services Association cost the state as much as one fourth of its budgeted expenditure. Given what the war is swallowing up, there is precious little left for development expenditure. Nobody can quarrel with President Kumaratunga's argument that no country could prosper under such conditions. So what do we do? That is the dilemma facing not just the government alone but the country itself.

On one side there is the acute need. On the other there is the harsh reality. Although it is too late to cry over spilt milk, it is worth remembering that when Dr. N.M. Perera was the finance minister, he made a far-sighted proposal to prevent the pension bill snowballing into gigantic proportions. His suggestion was that pensions be restricted to those who had joined a pensionable service and not extended to new entrants. This was quickly shot down by vote hungry politicians on both the government and opposition sides of the House. What Dr. Perera suggested was a practical scheme under which future public servants would not enjoy a non-contributory pension scheme like the earlier entrants but benefit from a contributory provident fund. This is what prevails in the private sector.

Public servants are not as badly off as many of them would like their fellow countrymen to think. It is easy enough for them to compare the salaries of the upper layers of the public sector with the upper layers of the private sector and point to a huge differential. They turn a blind eye to strategies adopted by many of their senior colleagues who have long drawn both salary and pension by the simple expedient of early retirement and continuing in their old jobs on a contract basis. Some of the most senior officials of government have done that. There are others who have prevailed on the political hierarchy to give them special terms in the government service by paying them salaries that are comparable to those in the private sector.

While it is true that very responsible public service jobs do not command the emoluments of blue chips in the private sector, the vast majority of private sector employees are not much better paid than most government servants. When the pensions of the public servants are taken to account, and the fact that their widows and orphans continue to enjoy these benefits upon the pensioner's death, it will be found that the public service package is much better than what most private sector employees earn. It must not be forgotten that the emoluments of public servants and pensioners are paid by all the people of the country and not just by some. Also, there are many troubling questions about what too many of our public servants give in return for what they take.

The home truths the president has spoken must be viewed in this context. A contributory retirement scheme at least for future public service entrants seems in the circumstances eminently fair. But whether politicians who have served themselves generously from the pension cake will view it in this light is an open question.