I do not question the role played by most ofour politicians in society. Most of the work carried out by politicians, who go out of their way and walk the proverbial extra mile to assist their constituents, is undoubtedly of sterling service to the community.  Unfortunately, at times,their work and genuine efforts go unnoticed, notwithstanding that their responsibility spansover a wide range of issues which directly or indirectly impinges on people’s quality of life and their standard of living. 

Unfortunately, currently there is a lot of adverse talk in various circles, many negative observations and remarks on media comments boards, and the social media is inundated with not so pleasant comments on an issue which has surfaced some days ago.Last week, out of the blue, the PL and the PN Members of Parliament currently sitting in the House agreed to rush through a law which caters for a revision of the Members’ pension rights. In a nutshell, the PL and the PN Parliamentarians agreed that MPs serving one term in any legislature will be entitled to full two-thirds pension rights.  Currently, MPs are entitled to full two-thirds pension rights after serving, at minimum, in two legislatures. 

This is a quasi similar situation to the error of judgement when late in the Gonzi legislature the PN government had decided to increase by €500 weekly the salary paid to ministers.  The €500-a-week saga created a political storm and, back then, the PL in Opposition took considerable political mileage from the situation.At the time, the PL in Opposition had mounted enough pressure on the Gonzi administration that ministers had to refund the increase to the national coffers.  

The latest PL/PN proposal for the revision of pensions to MPs received flack from diverse quarters.  The immediate reaction by the PD to this proposal was a negative one. The PD seized the opportunity to lambast both sides of the House and garner public support.  At face value, to a certain extent, the PD’s stand seems to be the correct one.  But looking at the issue dispassionately, one may find that our Parliamentarians deserve a financial package which is commensurate with the responsibility they carry.  Indeed, not all politicians are equal and some bad apples need to be removed from the apple cart, but it is up to the electorate to shoulder such responsibility.

If the electorate is happy to elect to the House people with baggage,with alleged cases of corruption hanging on their head, who are embroiled in dubious practices or who have used their public office to further their personal interests, then people should not complain. Moreover, not all members of parliament are cut out of the same cloth.  Notwithstanding this, on this occasion, the leading political parties have both failed to rise to the occasion and allowed themselves, as well as aspiring politicians,to be pushed into a very tight corner unnecessarily.

While there may be a hundred and one good and sufficient reasons for the revision in the pensions of parliamentarians, it is highly irregular and grossly unfair for the sitting parliamentarians to make these revisions.  It sounds like a very bad idea indeed, and it looks that the self-interest of our parliamentarians comes before any other, including the national good.

Whether the current pension rights enjoyed by parliamentarians may have created an anomaly between those elected for one term and those elected for more, this is not for them to decide.  Parliamentarians should have sought the counsel of an independent body to make the necessary recommendations to the House. When our parliamentarians speak of anomalies to justify this claim, they further compound matters and expose themselves to harsh criticism, most of which is justified.  There are a hundred and one other situations that could be touted as anomalies, particularly those of pensioners, widows and people with disabilities.

In my humble opinion, the time has come for the setting up of an independent commission, made up of people who have a good grasp of salary structures in the public and private sectors, to delve into the rate of pay that the prime minister, ministers, junior ministers, back-benchers, the leader of the Opposition and the Speaker of the House should receive.  One has the bear in mind that the prime minister and the ministers should not receive a salary which is lower than that a chairman of a public entity or authority receives. If deemed appropriate, the independent commission should also look into the possible revision of MPs’ pension rights.  But any recommendations made by the independent commission should not be piecemeal.  The commission should look into the matter in a holistic manner and should address the various issues related to parliamentarians’ remuneration. It might also be appropriate to review whether the time has come for our elected politicians to take their political duties on a full-time basis.

What is certain is that the public expects that our parliamentarians act in a more responsible and respectful manner towards the electorate.  After all, what was unacceptable a couple of years back should not become acceptable now.  Nonetheless, I am certain that if an independent commission finds that a revision in the pay of MPs is called for, many would not begrudge this.  What many including myself find unacceptable is the ‘help yourself’ attitude.

 

[email protected]

 

Editor's note: Gejtu Vella's piece was written before the revision to the MPs' pensions was withdrawn