Columns

Making a case for enhanced salaries and perks for the representatives of the people enjoying short stays at Diyawanna Oya, Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is reported to have said that this could help reduce corruption and attract better talent to parliament.

One hopes his thoughts have been conveyed correctly lest one is accused of ‘distortion’ which is increasingly becoming the defense mechanism of politicians and their brigades of pliant officials who suffer now and then from an affliction called foot-in-the-mouth.

Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe

I first read of his comments in the media, today’s number one whipping boy, and so far as I know that report stands without correction. So, one supposes, that the Prime Minister’s thoughts and words had been correctly reported because this is a very sensitive subject as the Prime Minister himself seems to recognise.

Mr. Wickremesinghe had reiterated that the current salary paid to MPs did not “attract the right people to parliament”.
What the Prime Minister said is hardly new. Sri Lankan people knew this all along and have suffered for several decades being fathered with mediocrities and the dubious. Many probably cursed under their breath and others often quite loudly with unprintable epithets. Still one must thank Ranil Wickremesinghe for articulating these publicly-held views.

I do not mean the plea he made for more bucks and perks for MPs. Rather I refer to the acknowledgement in Parliament that there is corruption among some of those who have been elected as law-makers and that the right people have not been sent to the legislature to make the laws under which the populace lives.

In days long gone by writers of the regular parliamentary sketch (mistakenly referred to as the Lobby Column) would have spent several column inches recording with wit and sarcasm the embarrassed reaction of our worthy representatives of the people to comments such as that of the Prime Ministers about corruption within the system and the quality of those currently occupying the seats in the chamber.

How many of our representatives were actually in the chamber at the time to listen to the prime ministerial wisdom – without any pangs of conscience – one does not know because those who write on the haps and mishaps in that august (?) assembly have missed out telling us and posterity about this salient statistic. Did the prospect of more manna from public coffers falling into their bank accounts make them simply ignore the barbs contained in the plea for more bucks for the laborious representatives of the people?

The Prime Minister tried to justify his call for more money and perks on two counts. Firstly that it would lead to less corruption. Secondly that better pay will open the doors to the right people entering the legislative portal.

While Mr. Wickremesinghe seems to have faith in the power of legitimately acquired wealth – monetary and material – to suddenly convert some to be virtuous and the ‘right’ people to enthusiastically grasp the opportunity to serve the people, many will contest the Prime Minister’s raison d’etre, however well-intentioned it might be.

Corruption has seeped so deep into the body politic that the acceptance or demand of a ‘santhosam’ today is seen as a right rather than an ancillary act that helps cement a relationship between giver and taker.

If the mere offer of an increased salary would instantly immunise the corrupt from ingrained behaviour then it would be more dramatic than Saul’s conversion on the road to Damascus.

We seem to forget that that there are more Oliver Twists embedded in our political and administrative system than Charles Dickens ever envisaged. The more you give the more they want because what they collect is not for themselves or their immediate needs. They are acquiring boodelays for kith and kin of several samsara.

So if it is imagined that increased salaries and perks will perceptibly reduce, if not eliminate, corruption among some of the elected it is indeed a benign hope, as indulgent as having faith in the pretentious pre-election promises of most politicians.

Corruption can only be cured if both the givers and receivers of bribes of all forms are publicly tried, punished, shamed and driven out of public life. Those who pay homage to the British parliamentary system might well think of introducing the Commons practice of monitoring MPs expenses and asking them to pay back expenses wrongfully claimed.

But even that is not foolproof. Some might recall the great expenses scandal of 2010 when half the MPs were asked to pay back £1.1 billion of tax payers money fraudulently claimed. This scandal that convulsed parliament for more than a year suffered a great shock when the police gave the go ahead to prosecute three MPs.

Our system does not have a mechanism to determine whether the allowances and perks given to MPs to be spent for specific purposes are actually spent for those purposes. Our system provides duty-free vehicle permits for MPs because they are required it is claimed, to attend to constituency work.
If that is the rationale then MPs who openly or surreptitiously sell their permits have no constituency work to do or they do not require the vehicle. So then why are they provided with permits that are then sold, a practice justified by some in government?

What on earth happened to the Code of Conduct for MPs? Copies of the code were distributed to MPs by the Speaker before the House adjourned for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year. That was in April. Since then nary a word about it, except a minister or a deputy coming up for air and uttering or muttering something.

Now the government is paving the way for MPs to collect enhanced pay and some to collect their santhosams from here and there too.
I doubt there is anybody in the present parliament who was an MP in the 1960s and early 70s. The MPs of that era had no duty-free vehicles. Not many of them had cars. Those who did had to buy second hand cars, often from the Government Stores to which some departing diplomats sold their vehicles.
Many MPs of the day travelled to and from parliament by bus and train. I well remember W. Dahanayake MP for Galle who was briefly the Prime Minister, sitting on the half-wall in front of the old parliament, waiting to catch a bus.

Some MPs like the LSSP’s Bernard Soysa, went by taxi or got a lift to and from parliament from a colleague. They had to look after larger constituencies than today because parliament had much less than half today’s 225 members.

They were not paid an additional allowance for attending parliamentary sessions. Surely they are elected as representatives to attend parliament. Why should they be paid extra for doing the job they were elected to do?

It is as ridiculous as paying a teacher an extra daily allowance for attending school each day. The payment of an allowance has been sadly misunderstood, if it was a misunderstanding.

In 1972 when parliament sat as a constituent assembly to draft the republican constitution, MPs were paid – if I remember correctly – hundred rupees a day for every day they attended the sittings of the constituent assembly. That was because attending the constituent assembly entailed extra work.
Not only did the MPs of that era manage with much lower salaries but many of them were professionals and educated persons from a different strata of society. Comparing them to today’s crop of MPs might seem unfair. Ranil Wickremesinghe himself confessed that today’s parliament does not attract the “right people” and attributed that to their not being paid sufficiently.

It might be recalled that the head of the National Dangerous Drugs Board once mentioned that of the 225 members in the last parliament 95 had failed the GCE ‘O’ Level and 145 had not passed the GCE ‘A’ Level. This is not to claim that passing the ‘O’ Level makes one an educated person and the ‘A’ Level an intellectual. But would it not be very helpful and educative if law makers were able to make useful and worthwhile contributions to parliamentary debate and discussion rather than raucous outpourings as frequently happens today.

Surely it would be ludicrous to find MPs without minimum educational qualifications sitting on the Parliamentary High Posts Committee or the Constitutional Council examining the credentials and perhaps questioning the legitimacy of a candidate way above their station.

It is interesting to note that the 1997 Constitution of Thailand laid down that candidates seeking election to the State Assembly need a minimum qualification of a university degree and the 2007 constitution introduced by the ruling military regime called for a minimum five consecutive years at an educational institution besides other requirements such as contesting only from the region where one was born and had contributed to its public life.

Candidates were also required, if I remember correctly, to own a house. This last qualification would not, of course, be a hurdle to many of our legislators who have during their term in office acquired more than one abode, often of luxurious proportions.

Mr. Wickremesinghe thinks that better salaries would attract the right people to parliament. That is a simplistic expectation. Not only has the public lost faith in the political system but are also contemptuous of politicians. Upright citizens consider some politicians a downright menace to society. After all there is an old saying about people being judged by the company they keep.