Last week’s parliamentary proceedings proved combative with both the government and the emasculated opposition hurling allegations at each other triggering much heat in the chamber. Observers must therefore be excused for wondering whether arrangements now being made to conduct the long postponed local government elections followed by provincial council polls have enervated political players months after last year’s presidential and parliamentary elections. The NPP/JVP cannot be happy about its performance at recent cooperative elections and opposition parties must be anxious to demonstrate they are not total write-offs as last year’s polls suggested.

Subjects over which angry words were exchanged ranged between luxury Colombo residences being provided to former presidents at taxpayer expense and other privileges enjoyed by government functionaries paid for by the exchequer. The news also broke last week that, on a decision of the House Committee, the elected representatives of the people will no longer be fed sumptuous heavily subsidized meals in the parliament restaurant. Prices will be cost reflective, no less than the president has said. It was reported that MPs will henceforth have to pay Rs. 2,000 for breakfast, lunch and afternoon tea at the parliament restaurant against Rs. 450 in the past.

We need hardly labour the fact that there is deep seated public resentment about ministers and parliamentarians being pampered at public expense. Former prime minister, Sir. John Kotelawela, once famously said “handa athey thiyanakan bedaganilla” (as long as the spoon is in your hand, serve yourself!). The ruling elite has been doing just that over the years. The present regime has earned brownie points, probably translating to votes, for its determination to end or at least trim this state of affairs hopefully for all time.

President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, appearing on a television talk show a few nights ago, repeated the promise that pensions for parliamentarians will be abolished although there is no word yet about when this would be done. The KT Chitrasiri report of a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge on perks and privileges conferred on politicians, past and present, is in but has not yet been published. But it is known or widely believed that the first steps are being taken regarding the Colombo mansions provided to former presidents is a result of these recommendations.

The present scheme of pensions to parliamentarians is an abomination. A minimum five years of parliamentary service entitles the beneficiary to a lifetime’s pension which will continue to be paid to a surviving spouse, also for life. These pensions are non-contributory. This is quite in contrast to what prevails where government servants are concerned. A public servant must work for 30 years to qualify for a full pension. While both public servants and MPs enjoy non-contributory pensions, government employees must contribute to what is called the Widows and Orphans Pension Scheme (W&OPS) for their families to benefit from their pensions after their death. MPs enjoy that without payment. Also there is no minimum retirement age for parliamentarians unlike in the public service. MPs continue in office until they are defeated or decide not to seek re-election without loss of pension benefits.

While there is no reason to disbelieve the president’s assurance that MPs pensions would be abolished, the question is when? A very large number of pensionable parliamentarians were defeated or decided not to run at the last election as they saw their chances of re-election either as slim or non-existent. We are told that those who became entitled to parliamentary pensions following the last election are already being paid. Where public servants are concerned, it is always not that easy for pension payments to begin soon after retirement. They have to wait for months and years sometimes to be paid as papers from various offices, schools and departments where they served in different parts of the country must be collated to begin such payments. This difficulty will not arise where parliamentarians are concerned. Nevertheless withdrawing privileges, especially from long time beneficiaries, is not as easy as granting them.

Last week’s parliamentary proceedings as well as press reports revealed that three former presidents, Chandrika Kumaratunga, Mahinda Rajapaksa and Maithripala Sirisena enjoy state-owned residences in Colombo. Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Hema Premadasa have given up such homes they once occupied – Mrs. Premdasa for many years after the assassination of her husband. Mind-boggling government valuations running into millions per month of these perks have been bruited around by the president and others in the ruling hierarchy. CBK is already on record saying she’s spent a fortune, raised by selling her own property, refurbishing and maintaining her official residence. This seems not to be the case where MR is concerned; at least he has not claimed to have done so.

MR’s mouthpieces are on record saying he would go if he’s asked to go. This neither appears to have been done nor has he been asked to pay the true value of the property he occupies. Rajapaksa is entitled to a third of his pension – about Rs. 30,000 – if he is not provided suitable accommodation by the state. While acolytes say there are plenty of people to provide MR with a home if he needs one, the cabinet spokesman says “don’t wait to be asked, just go.” All this, of course, is useless talk. Ministers did occupy state owned mansions over the years. So also did (and do) many state officials. Are valuations placed on state-owned residences they occupy and are they asked to pay commensurate rent?

The present ministers don’t occupy state-owned residences unlike their predecessors where some even built swimming pools for themselves and one installed a lift for his elderly mother. The prime minister, we know, lives in her own home and not at Temple Trees. The president too does not live in government owned premises. Duty free vehicles for MPs, also a past abomination, will be no more. We remember a JVP MP of the past bringing her own buth packet to parliament. But we have not heard of anybody refusing a parliamentary pension he/she was entitled to and wonder whether a single individual has drawn not one but two parliamentary pensions in the past!