MPs’ allowances and public perception

Much is being made of the proposed increase in allowance to MPs these days, not by the Opposition but, civil society groups and Watchdog bodies. A case is being made that the increase is incongruous at a time when more and more taxes are being heaped on the people. It is also claimed, in view of the country's massive debt burden, it is the MPs who should take the lead and tighten their belts. There is also the argument made that MPs don't deserve even the current emoluments they receive due to poor performance and wanting in their fiduciary duties.

A valid point was made by March 12th Movement Convener Rohana Hettiarachchi who said the people would not begrudge the increase in emoluments of their parliamentary representatives, provided they perform their role in a satisfactory manner. He pointed to a recent instance where only five MPs were present in the House when sessions ended and also where two important Bills were passed without a quorum. He also opined that people would not have minded the increase if it was done as a reward after the country reached a certain level of development.

It was the late President J.R. Jayewardene who started the practice of showering largesse on the MPs in the post 77 era. JRJ in his infinite wisdom thought that Parliamentarians would cease to engage in acts of corruption if they were “looked after” well by the state. Well, as they say, the rest is history. Events overtook the country on such a scale that he was unable to keep tabs on his Ministers or MPs, a majority of them making hey while the sun shined, at least on them.

Things have metamorphosized to such an extent that today the Government is seeking the assistance of friendly states to trace the loot of former leaders- the loot being so large that it has even begun to impact on the country's GDP- stashed in overseas banks. It is in his context that the raising of MPs’ allowances should be viewed. The public have long been wise to the fact that their representatives enrich themselves not curtsy the salaries, allowances and the myriad of perks they receive, although they are by themselves large enough. They are aware that the only source for their luxury lifestyles and new rich status is corrupt deals and misappropriation of public funds. Nothing can banish this mindset formed by the public about our politicians. The anger stems not so much as from the tax burdens they are called upon to shoulder than by the knowledge that the state continues to reward these MPs out of the public purse, on top of the illegal acquisition of wealth, as mentioned. They (the public) cannot be faulted for feeling doubly cheated. Hence the Government should act with circumspection when deciding to enhance emoluments of the MPs. Besides it should be mindful of the reasons why the public booted out the last regime.

It is also revealing how Opposition MPs who tear into the Government at the drop of a hat has maintained a deafening silence over the “wasteful” move. So far there has not been even a whimper of protest from the likes of Wimal Weerawansa and Udaya Gammanpila on the allowance hike. It will be interesting to observe the reaction of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa who in addition is also collecting his not inconsiderable Presidential pension. One would have thought that MR would make some form of protest, given his constant accusation that the Government was piling tax burdens on the populace. janathawata badhu bara patawana aanduwak. The JVP for their part has objected to the increase but not with much conviction. JVP MP Vijitha Herath, asked by the Daily News if they would accept the allowance, if approved by the Cabinet, said the party had not made any decision in that regard.

When JRJ started dishing it out to the MPs it was argued that a salary increase made to 225 MPs would have no effect on the country's economy unlike if such an increase was granted to public servants numbering 1.3 million. This has been the basis on which our erstwhile peoples’ representatives continue to have their emoluments increased periodically. Well, the economics of the matter aside, it is the morality of the deed that has been raised in indifferent fora. The MPs might argue that costs have escalated and they need to live with dignity as befitting their status. This argument might hold water if not for the negative impression formed by the public of politicians as thieves. (Sadly even the genuine ones too get tarred with the same brush). The public too cannot be faulted for forming such an opinion given the conduct of politicians even before they get elected to Parliament. Elections in this country have been transformed into a blood sport with aspirants to power going hell for leather to win at any cost leaving the public to wonder as to the real motive for their would be peoples’ representatives in seeking to enter Parliament. So long as this negative mindset of the public persist it will be hard to justify any raise in the emoluments of our peoples’ representatives.