.

Self service

Yesterday's Island report that Members of Parliament and Ministers are to get a fat pay hike with retrospective arrears from January this year is not likely to be applauded by the people of this country. Sri Lankans are no different from people in any part of the world in resenting their elected representatives, presiding over the public exchequer, serving themselves lavishly from the public purse. Whether the proposed increase which benefits parliamentarians of both the government and opposition will go through in the face of public opinion remains to be seen.

Everybody in this country, the rulers most of all, are very well aware that wages have long ceased to keep pace with prices. For people who earn a salary, the struggle to keep up with the cost of living has been long and hard. The lower and middle classes have been caught like an arecanut between the blades of the cutter and the few sops that have been thrown to them off and on have failed to make any tangible difference to their standards of living. That is why so many people identify with Punchi Singho, Wijesoma's well known cartoon character, going to market sans his nether garment clutching an empty bag.

Yesterday's news report said that cabinet ministers and the speaker who are now paid a monthly allowance of Rs. 17,000 are to be paid Rs. 29,815. The deputy speaker, the deputy chairman of committees and deputy ministers will get Rs. 28,750, up from the Rs. 17,000 they now draw. The monthly allowance of MPs is to be raised from Rs. 13,500 to Rs. 22,100. These are undoubtedly very high increases for a country fighting a civil war and undergoing all manners of fiscal hardship as eloquently stated in the budget that has just been presented.

All the old arguments will surely be adduced to justify the proposed increases. Nobody can credibly argue that given the current cost of living our legislators are overpaid. But they must never forget that this holds true for most of the people of this country. Could the MPs then justify looking after themselves while the vast majority are left out in the wilderness? The chances are that the government and the opposition will have to come to an agreement on these pay increases which benefit all MPs regardless of which side of the House they sit in if the proposal is to be adopted. If that agreement is not obtained, it will be difficult for the government to unilaterally push it through. If the opposition agrees to sail with the majority, the people who are increasingly inclined to tar all politicians with the same brush regardless of their party affiliations will be even more convinced that they have little choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Leaders like the late President J.R. Jayewardene used to argue that unless legislators were adequately paid corruption would be inevitable. The country, unfortunately, has not seen any reduction in corruption despite the spectacular increases in parliamentary allowances we have seen in the post-independence period. It is true that when MPs of the first parliament were paid a monthly allowance of around six hundred rupees, a decent rice and curry meal could have been had for a rupee. The prime minister then earned less than a parliamentary messenger does today. But in those early days very many of those who sought election were people of means. There were others, certainly, who were not that well placed whose sole sustenance was their parliamentary allowance. Such MPs would have certainly found the going rough even in those pre-inflation days.

But what has happened now is that the emoluments that are paid to legislators, together with other substantial perks like duty free vehicles and a lot more, have themselves become attractions for election to parliament. We certainly cannot have a situation that only those with means should come forward to serve the people as their elected representatives. But should the ``package'' offered be too glittering a prize? Whether even the enhanced allowances proposed could be so categorised remains arguable. But the fact remains that political office is an undoubted attraction for a great many people. Whether sufficient numbers of the best have come into the fray is, of course, is another question to which the average man will have a cynical reply.

Even now MPs are better served than other public servants in areas such as pensions. Five years in parliament is sufficient to qualify for a pension which was first restricted to the member himself (or herself) but was since extended to cover spouses and dependent children. The main question at issue, shorn of all the prejudices that inevitably cloud matters like this, is whether the legislators should decide to vote themselves a substantial pay increase at a time the vast majority of the people of the country cannot be similarly looked after? The British ministers thought not a few months ago. Our ministers, it seems, think otherwise judging from what has been published. If the proposal goes through, who can fault the public for regarding the whole business as one of self service?

| NEWS | PROVINCIAL | POLITICS | DEFENCE | FEATURES | LEISURE | BUSINESS | SPORTS | ADS |