Features

Pension for politicians, for what service they do to the country?

Published

5 years ago

2021/12/10

Members of Parliament (MP) have to serve 10 years hereafter to qualify for pension as opposed to five years at present. (2022 Budget speech)

BY Dr. Sudath Gunasekara

While welcoming that policy decision of the Government, who can say that this is not another election ‘gundu’ to deceive the people aimed at the proposed Provincial Council Elections? If the Government was really honest and concerned about public good, what it should do is to abolish this joke immediately, particularly in view of the present hard times the country has fallen on, as Canada had done in 1995, without continuing an unwanted bonanza to trap politicians cunningly, used as a bait by party leaders, that bleed the nation.

The Mike Harris government eliminated MPPs’ pension plans following the 1995 provincial election. Even if it is allowed in exceptional cases like in Canada, a pension to a politician should be paid only after 65 years, in recognition of his or her distinguished service to the nation when they are disabled, to earn a living.

Why pay pensions to politicians at all, who volunteer and swear to serve the people at elections and on the contrary rob and destroy the entire nation after they come to power. It is to hoodwink.

Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa in his Budget (2022) speech has proposed that MPs be eligible for a pension only after completing 10 years of continuous ‘service’. This too in my view is not warranted and justified at all, particularly in this country, where they come into politics for power and amass wealth and rob public assets and money in unethical ways. They don’t even declare their assets before nomination or even afterwards, deliberately, to enable themselves to justify their illegal earnings if someone questions their assets afterwards. What is more ludicrous is their claim to a pension, despite the enormous financial benefits and privileges afforded from the day they are elected, compared to what politicians in pre 70s got. For example, an MP those days got only an allowance of 500 rupees, a Junior Minister Rs 750 and a Minister Rs 1,000 a month. They were also not allocated official vehicles, duty-free vehicle permits, official residences in Colombo, other payments like sitting allowances or any other allowance or other perks like special allocations for seats, (in spite of the fact that none of these people have an electorate as they are only District MPs, which has made representative democracy a big farce).

My question is, under these circumstances, why pay a pension at all to any politician in this country. Because paying a pension to any politician is contrary to all basic principles, related to paying pensions, accepted all over the world. Because, originally people over 70 were paid a pension, who were unable to make a living, as a mark of gratitude for the continued and devoted service they rendered to the nation or a certain company. Those days it was public service and not self-service, as it is today.

The man behind the initiative called ‘The Old Age and Disability Bill’ was Otto von Bismarck of the German Empire. Germany was thus the first European country to establish a fully-fledged pensions scheme for workers aged 70 or above. The limit was lowered to 65 in June 1916.

In 1875, The American Express Co. created the first private pension plan in the US for the elderly and workers with disabilities. Early pension benefits were designed to pay out a relatively low percentage of the employee’s pay at retirement and were not designed to replace the employee’s full final income.

In Sri Lanka it was started by the colonial Government for the benefit of its aged employees, for the dedicated service they had rendered to the Empire. Subsequently it was extended to retired public servants who had completed 35 years of satisfactory service in public service. As such it was justifiable, as the only income of a man or a woman, who has devoted years in service to the nation, debarring any other job while one is engaged in public service, comes to an end the day he or she retires. But it should be noted that, to get that benefit they had to contribute a certain percentage monthly from their salary to which the Government contributed a certain percentage. Therefore, in fact, they are paid from a reserve fund maintained by the Government out of funds they have contributed throughout their service. What is more is that they have to complete 35 years of service to qualify for the pension. When someone retires prematurely the pension is frozen until he or she reaches the age of 55. This clearly shows that there is a very sound rationale behind paying a pension to a retired public servant and it is fully justified both rationally and ethically.

Now let us examine the rationale behind paying a pension to a politician in this country. Paying pensions to politicians started in 1977 by the JR Jayewardene Government. Curiously it was the first legal enactment of that so-called Democratic Socialist Government of JR, passed as a matter of priority, as if it was the most burning ‘public issue’ his government had to solve. Does this not show the degree of concern and commitment our politicians had towards the welfare of the people who elevated them to high positions by electing them with a 5/6th majority in 1977, hoping to get a better deal than from the previous government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

What is hilarious and despicable is that this piece of legislation marked the turning point in Sri Lankan political culture, when the interests of the politicians overtook those of the people in a country that inherited a rich legacy of public good enshrined in the Buddhist concept ‘Bahujana hitaya bahujana sukhaya’ (for the good of the many and for their happiness at large).

What is even more despicable is that it was awarded to all politicians who completed five years ‘service’ irrespective of whether they served the people or not. What was ludicrous was the payment of the pension to his or her spouse after the death of the MP. Further his family would get another pension or even more if his or her son or daughter had been appointed as the Private Secretary, Public Relations Officer or such, which has now become the norm, a tradition that had come to stay as a political privilege. Payment of pensions under this scheme was made with retrospective effect and it was payable even to politicians who served in the State Council, if they were living at that time, with arrears.

Only one man refused to accept this blood money, in the history of Parliament. He returned it to the Speaker. The man mentioned here was my good friend M.S. Themis, the third MP for Colombo Central in 1956. He was the first person and perhaps the only man to return it. I know it for certain as I was the one who prepared the cover letter to the Speaker.

This piece of legislation was also a complete violation of the Pension minute which nobody dared to challenge or even question up to date either in a court of law or Parliament, said to be the Supreme law-making body of the country.

Isn’t it interesting to note how our lawmakers make laws and for whose benefit they make them in this so-called supreme legislature of the country, expected to make laws for good governance for the good of the people and the good of the country at large?

JR did not stop at that. He did everything to enhance the fabulous benefit package to MPs with immediate effect. He dramatically increased salaries, increased the sitting allowance and official vehicles and duty-free vehicle permits were also provided, which they could sell in the open market and make a fabulous fortune. Official quarters in Colombo were also provided, whereas they had to be in Colombo only for eight days a month. Unlimited job permits for MPs to provide employment to their party supporters, monopoly of tavern licence, business permits and government contracts, nationalisation of land for a song, by Mrs B, through the establishment of Land Reform Commission (LRC); and government import permits; the sky was the limit to such privileges. Here I stop the list for brevity and lack of space. All this was done to buy over the MPs, to maintain the majority in Parliament, to embellish and consolidate JR’s dictatorial position as the Executive President which perhaps he thought was a lifetime job, but unfortunately not.

The same corrupt highway robbery still continues at increasing rates without being openly questioned or challenged by anyone in the ‘People’s Parliament’. So much so today the whole system of governance in this country has become a veritable national liability.

JR also increased the number of MPs in Parliament from 196 to 225 by introducing the National list, to provide a place in Parliament for their kith and kin and family friends, as backdoor MPs, bypassing elections, making Representative Parliament ‘Non-representative’, thereby rendering representative democracy a hilarious joke. Had it been reduced to the previous number, it would have saved billions for national development and reduced IMF and other foreign loan repayment burdens, thereby reducing the annual budget deficit and avoiding bankruptcy.

On top of this, JR also signed an agreement with Rajiv Gandhi, handing over the North and East, comprising 1/3 of the land of the country and 2/3 of the coastal belt, together with its maritime territory, as the Traditional Historical Homeland of the Tamil people.

What is more depressing is that this provincial council system has already wasted trillions of public funds for the upkeep of these superfluous new political establishments at no benefit to the country but only to the politicians, from 1987 to date. It is said that 85 percent of the national tax collection is spent on the upkeep of politicians and so-called public officials in this country, leaving only 15 percent to do everything else for over 21 million citizens. Meanwhile, lawlessness, corruption and international debt to the tune of US $ 56 billion, drags the country to the bottom of abject poverty and bankruptcy, forcing this once proud nation and second richest country in Asia, second only to Japan by 1948, to seek loans even from Bangladesh and Maldives.

This is the pathetic situation in to which this proud and rich nation, which gave Sterling loans even to the British Empire in the early 1950s, has been thrust, by our politicians who are supposed to have ruled this nation from 1948 up to date, a land further devastated by separatists Tamils and Muslims with their Tamil and Muslim dreamlands.

It is this kind of politicians, who have robbed the nation blind and continue to do so, who are responsible for making this country debt-ridden, while these parasitic and good-for-nothing governments continue to give fat pensions to MPs, extracting from the beggar’s bowl.

Against this backdrop, I strongly oppose a single cent being given to any politician, as a pension. In addition, I also suggest that all extraordinary benefits such as palatial official residences, official vehicles, security details and other benefits be withdrawn forthwith before the masses march in thousands and forcibly take over all these public assets as protest against what they have done to this country and the Sinhala nation over the past 73 years.

This includes all politicians including ex-Presidents and their rich widows. However, I am not against paying a pension to an honest politician like C.W.W Kannangara who devoted his entire life in service to the people and the country and who had done an indelible and memorable service to the nation, after passing a resolution in Parliament to that effect. That will definitely prevent self-seeking, wealth-mongering people in politics from receiving the pension, limiting it to men and women of outstanding character, dignity and commitment to the service of people, the noble vow of any honest politician.

Finally I propose first, the immediate abolition of the pension scheme to all politicians and second, appointment of a powerful Presidential or Public Commission to enquire into the illegal earnings of all politicians at all levels starting from 1977 up to date and confiscation of all assets proven illegal, both at home and abroad, such as ‘Pandora assets’. I propose that all that wealth be credited to the General Treasury Account so that people will get back all the wealth robbed by politicians at least from 1977 onwards, so that all those who aspire to be politicians in future will begin with a new political vision, opening the doors to a new political culture, setting a Sri Lankan model for the entire world and once again restore the ancient glory of the Sinhala nation.

All News Advertisement

Features

Coercive laws recipe for future misrule

Published

15 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

by Jehan Perera

The NPP government is going after powerful figures from the past and present who have engaged in corruption, fraud and criminal activity in a way that no previous government in Sri Lanka has done. Former ministers, politicians and senior state officials are among those facing investigations and legal proceedings. The government has placed before Parliament a document listing 50 cases involving corruption, fraud and other crimes. These include not only financial offences but also cases relating to the Easter Sunday attacks, the killings of Lasantha Wickrematunge and Wasim Thajudeen, the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda and attacks on journalists Keith Noyahr and Upali Tennakoon.

The significance of this effort is that it can demonstrate that nobody is above the law, regardless of political connections or social standing, which will help restore public confidence in institutions that have long been distrusted. It could also recover public resources, improve the investment climate and strengthen the foundations for a more prosperous and just Sri Lanka. When criticised for focusing on the past and not the present, the government position is that these investigations were initiated under earlier governments, particularly between 2015 and 2019, and that it is now allowing investigators to proceed to deal with the backlog without political interference.

But there is an aspect of the government’s approach that is less justifiable. While pursuing past wrongdoing by powerful individuals, it is also advancing a triumvirate of draft laws that could give the state sweeping powers over citizens, organisations and dissent in the present and future. The draft Prevention of Terrorism legislation, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill raise serious questions about the over-centralisation of power. Each of these laws strengthens the powers of the state while weakening the rights and safeguards that protect people from their misuse and thus questions the basic rights of people in democracy where ‘the power of the people is vested in the government’. This is a recipe for future misrule rather than the rule of law. As the well-known saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Proposed Laws

The real test of system change, for which the government obtained an overwhelming mandate, requires not only a government willing to hold others accountable, but one prepared to subject itself to the same principles of legality, transparency and restraint. The three proposed laws that are particularly important in this regard are the Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill, the Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill and the NGO Registration and Supervision Bill. Each of these draft laws has been presented as serving a legitimate purpose. Preventing terrorism, combating organised crime and ensuring that NGOs do not facilitate money laundering or terrorist financing are proper responsibilities of the state. Sri Lanka has international obligations in these areas, and no responsible government can disregard them. However, the existence of a legitimate objective does not justify every means adopted to achieve it.

The proposed Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill illustrates the problem. Although its definition of terrorism draws on a model developed by a former United Nations Special Rapporteur, the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has warned that the definition of terrorism extends beyond the model and could bring legitimate political protest, trade union action and civil disobedience within the scope of counter-terrorism legislation. Its concerns also include prolonged detention, inadequate judicial oversight and restrictions on access to legal counsel. These are objections that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The government cannot credibly promise to protect democratic freedoms while creating powers that could be used to restrict them. It is necessary for the government to reassess the draft through transparent consultation and revise provisions that could criminalise legitimate dissent.

The Prevention of Organised Crimes Bill raises similar concerns. It is presented as giving effect to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which Sri Lanka ratified in 2006. The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) has argued that the convention does not require many of the bill’s provisions. The proposed law extends to a broad range of offences, permits detention orders lasting up to a year, makes confessions to police admissible for purposes of legal evidence, and introduces extensive surveillance powers. A law intended to dismantle criminal networks should not create a parallel system of exceptional powers that could be applied far beyond organised crime. Nor should safeguards developed through years of experience with abuses under the Prevention of Terrorism Act be weakened through legislation bearing a different name. The government should review whether or not existing laws could be used effectively to control these crimes or whether each exceptional power is necessary.

Civil Society

The proposed NGO Registration and Supervision Bill presents another test of the government’s intentions. The government may reasonably seek transparency in the finances of organisations receiving public or foreign funds, including measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. It seeks to justify its overreach on the grounds of meeting the internationally mandated requirements of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for the Asia-Pacific region. But these objectives do not justify placing civil society and NGOs under excessive administrative control when even the FATF ranks them as low to medium risks. The draft bill would require registration and renewal, impose extensive obligations on organisations and empower authorities to suspend or deregister them on broadly framed grounds. It is important to redraft provisions that confer excessive discretion over registration, renewal, suspension and deregistration of NGOs.

Among the concerns raised by United Nations human rights special rapporteurs with regard to the draft NGO law are provisions requiring organisations to align with government policies and restrictions that could affect advocacy, dissent and freedom of association. The implications extend well beyond organisations that engage directly with the government. Community groups, human rights organisations, independent researchers and organisations working on reconciliation or accountability could find their activities constrained by uncertainty over how these provisions might be interpreted. Organisations that criticise government policies are not thereby working against the country. Their freedom to do so is part of what distinguishes a democracy from a system in which the government determines which opinions and activities are acceptable.

The government has generated considerable public goodwill through its pursuit of corruption and criminality. It should not assume that this goodwill gives it an unlimited mandate to strengthen the coercive powers of the state. The NPP knows from its own history that governments can treat dissent as a threat and use the machinery of the state against their opponents. There is still time to correct the drafts through transparent public consultation, narrow definitions of offences, meaningful judicial control over detention and surveillance, and effective remedies against arbitrary decisions. A government that pursues corruption while weakening safeguards against state abuse risks undermining its own achievements. Besides bringing to light the abuse of power by previous governments, the NPP government needs to build a system in which no future government can abuse power in the belief they can get away with it.

Features

Quality assurance without quality enhancement: The irony of university QA

Published

15 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

By Ramya Kumar

According to the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Commission (UGC), quality assurance (QA) refers to “the means (i.e. the policies, attitudes, actions, procedures, etc.), by which an institution can guarantee with confidence and certainty, that the standards and quality of its educational provision are being maintained and enhanced”.

An expansive structure has been in place since 2005 to govern and implement QA processes within the state university system. The QAC is the focal point at the UGC that implements external reviews of state universities and institutes. Each university has its own Centre for Quality Assurance (CQA) tasked with performing QA in line with QAC directives. Faculties, in turn, have Internal Quality Assurance Cells (IQAC) performing their own QA; they are answerable to the CQA.

The big question is whether this all-encompassing top-down QA system, that in many ways undermines the internal dynamics of university governance, actually supports universities to enhance the quality of education. This article highlights some concerns.

Top-down check-box activities

The QAC conducts external reviews of universities and degree programmes. A review team appointed by the UGC (who may or may not have experience in the institution/programme in question) examines the self-evaluation report submitted by the said institution/programme. The team then conducts a site visit to verify the claims made in the university’s self-evaluation report, clarify issues identified during the desk review, and examine how QA procedures operate in practice. The team holds meetings with the university administration, members of the Council and Senate, Deans, Heads of Departments, academic and non-academic staff, students, and others. Following the visit, a draft report is submitted to the relevant institution/programme for comment before final publication. The reviewed institution/programme then prepares and publishes an action plan addressing the recommendations, with subsequent monitoring of progress.

There are some worthy QA initiatives under implementation, such as improving facilities for students with disabilities and strengthening mechanisms to address sexual- and gender-based violence. However, for the most part, QA activities have little to do with improving the quality of education. They are mostly preoccupied with monitoring faculty and department websites, digital transformation, student feedback, subject evaluation, course evaluation, peer evaluation, and, more recently, staff appraisal. These activities, which consume an inordinate amount of time—so precious at understaffed universities—have become check-box activities completed to generate evidence for the next review. Below is an excerpt of a conversation between two academics (1 and 2) that conveys how QA plays out at universities (reproduced with permission).

1: … .it’s like social media you know, like posting things on Facebook or twitter or Instagram. When people do a lot of social media, everything they do, they do thinking, “okay I’m going to post it in this way… this I have to put on my Instagram.” QA is a little like that… everything is considered in light of, “ah we can use this for the review, as evidence… for example very recently we were encouraged to have all the things that we do in our department in the faculty newsletter so then they can put in the review. Every little thing has to be noted down….

2: And with pictures and all…

1: At the very least it has to be written so that you have written evidence .. you can’t be doing something for the sake of doing something or because it is good for the department … and sometimes people tell me “oh yea that’s a good idea we can fit that under this x, y section of the review..”

2: Yea, and nobody really thinks about the actual outcome… whether it’s actually helping anyone..

1: I also find that a lot of the words that we used in different ways have now been co-opted to the QA discourse ..including quality.. I can’t actually say what I want as an “outcome”, for example, that the outcome of this workshop is that my students “think about” … then I am told “ah but no that’s not one of the Bloom’s taxonomy words, “think about”.…

2: And the worst part is these medical and agriculture people, these types of people go around spreading it like some kind of gospel!

1: Yea, this cookie cutter way of doing things, they think is the height of innovativeness or creativity, when actually it is so mundane … for me the most awful thing about it is like some fungus of mundanity has taken over through QA reviews.

2: yea, when you say QA, my mind closes off immediately and I stop listening…

Auditing everything but power

QA leaves out crucial aspects of university governance. For instance, there is no review or assessment of the “quality” of university administrations under Criterion 1 or the integrity of procedures governing the promotion of academic staff under Criterion 6 of the institutional reviews.

The majority in the Council—the university’s executive and governing body, which is responsible for selecting the Vice-Chancellor (VC)—are appointed in ad hoc fashion. Apart from the Ex-Officio members in the Council (VC, Deans, etc.), and the two members elected by the Senate, the remainder are appointed by the UGC with no formal consultation or vetting procedure. The VC appointment process described in UGC Circular No. 03/2023 exemplifies how an ostensibly technical process can become entangled in political sycophancy. The Registrar invites applications for the position of VC through advertisement. Applicants must submit a curriculum vitae, a statement of vision for the university and supporting documents. The University Council appoints a three-member Search Committee of senior academics to encourage “eminent persons” to apply, while the UGC appoints a former VC from another university to “observe” the selection process.

A Special Meeting of the University Council is convened. Candidates are interviewed and must make a presentation to the Council Members, followed by questions. Each Council member “gives marks” for seven prescribed criteria: strategic focus (20%), effective leadership (20%), holistic thinking/conceptual skills (10%), academic and research excellence (15%), personal integrity (10%), professional communication (10%) and managerial competence (15%). Marks are averaged, and the Council recommends three candidates to the UGC in rank order. The UGC-appointed observer separately submits a confidential report on the selection process.

This procedure is expected to guarantee quality, but does it? Applications are submitted to the Council Members, who have been appointed on questionable bases, and who are expected to review the applications and give scores, based on objective assessments. But, in reality, most Council Members are manipulated by VC candidates, who often have personal ties with them. The UGC-appointed observer usually has no genuine interest in the outcome. And there is no way for anyone to actually question the Council’s decision once it is made. Although the highest-ranked candidate may ultimately be appointed, the selection remains a political decision made by the President, who retains the discretion to appoint any one of the three.

External reviews also do not look into the promotions of academic staff, except to scrutinise whether there are policies and procedures in place to govern promotion. Academic staff may apply for promotion to Professor once they satisfy the prescribed eligibility requirements, which typically include the period of service, academic qualifications, research and publication achievements, teaching experience, and contributions to the university and wider community. Applications are evaluated against specified criteria, with research output and academic contributions assessed through documentary evidence and expert evaluation. Under the UGC’s scheme for Professors, two experts from outside the applicant’s institution assess specified aspects of research and knowledge dissemination. Again, beneath this technical process, which is externally evaluated, lies a problematic points-based scheme that can be manipulated and abused with impunity.

Rethinking university QA

Like the VC election process and the schemes of promotion for academic staff, QA reviews are open to manipulation. Before a review, there is a chaotic rush to complete evidence gathering and reporting. Academics leave all other work aside, including at times their teaching, to focus on completing documentation and preparing reports. The standardised criteria in the review manuals and scoring sheets often do not reflect differences in disciplines and institutional contexts. But this does not really matter because any serious problems experienced by institutions or programmes are hastily brushed under the carpet to conceal any evidence that could taint the review. The goal is to obtain an A or at least a B grade at whatever cost.

QA may result in positive change if it moves beyond top-down check-box activities towards internally designed and owned processes encompassing all aspects of university governance, led by departments and faculties, and supported by adequate resources. The current QA system needs to be dismantled and replaced by procedures that are accountable, not to the UGC, but to our students and the communities we serve.

(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna)

. Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Features

Down Memory Lane — the Grand 20th Edition!

Published

15 hours ago

2026/10/13

Sahan Weerasooriya

Down Memory Lane: Ready to sing again

Yes, Down Memory Lane, the beloved Sing-Along concert series that first struck a chord, way back in 1997, returns for its landmark 20th edition this Saturday, 17th October, at the beautiful Bolgoda Grand Resort, Moratuwa town centre.

Having celebrated its glorious 25th anniversary with the show in 2023, this milestone 20th concert promises to be even more special.

The organisers, the ever-popular Moratuwa Arts Forum, are pulling out all the stops to present yet another unforgettable evening, brimming with camaraderie, fellowship, and pure nostalgia.

Get ready for two-and-a-half hours of non-stop singing as veteran vocalists, from the Moratuwa Arts Forum, will take the stage to lead and inspire the happy audience to sing, sing and sing to their hearts’ content.

The repertoire? Absolutely magical, according to the organisers.

Veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike: Will handle the evening’s proceedings / Priya Peiris: Event Conceptor

Around 40 golden oldies — from timeless English vintage evergreens and hits from the 50s to the 90s, to toe-tapping calypsos, soulful American plantation melodies, rousing cowboy and Dixieland favourites, aa well as cherished Sinhala standards. All to be sung with much gusto!

This year’s dedicated organising committee comprises Brian Coorey (Chairman), Priya Peiris (Event Conceptor), Hiran Fernando, Suranga Fernando, Viranjan Perera, Hemka Fernando and Neelesh Silva. Guidance and support comes from Moratuwa Arts Forum President Sarana Guneratne and Secretary Chandani Silva.

Adding his signature charm to the evening, as Master of Ceremonies, will be the veteran Arun Dias Bandaranaike.

Don’t miss this landmark celebration of music and memories!

For further details, contact Hiran Fernando on 0772636446 or WhatsApp 0783636446.