Beyond the means

Perks for retired MPs

Our MPs didn’t have things entirely their way. Seeking different amendments to the Bill on Perks for Former Office Bearers, which was being discussed in the parliament’s State Affairs Committee (SAC), MPs had sought ‘state hierarchy’, lifelong medical and transport allowances for all former MPs, as well as a permanent logo for the 601 CA members involved in the promulgation of the new constitution. They were in such rush because their term expires on October 21, a day before the nomination for the election to the federal parliament, as provided in the new constitution. That is what they wanted. The amended bill that was endorsed by the SAC on Sunday instead provided for life-long free medical treatment for former MPs in government hospitals, even as it recognized their right to lifelong state hierarchy. Significantly, the demand for the unspecified ‘other perks’ was dropped in the final bill that will now be put before the whole parliament for its final approval. But state perks to former office bearers—including former presidents, vice-presidents, prime ministers, speakers, chairmen of the National Assembly and chief justices—have been increased. These ex-office bearers will now be entitled to an elevated sliding scale of monthly allowances and house rents. 

Our MPs argue that these benefits are no different to emoluments and pensions that retired government employees are entitled to. But this is a faulty comparison. While most government employees really do retire on leaving office, most of the existing MPs are sure to be in politics far into the future. There is never a hard and fast retirement for politicians. Some of them have also argued that not all MPs are rich, and some are even dirt-poor. This argument, too, is hard to buy. Even if some of them were not filthy rich before they were elected in 2013, after their election they have passed a slew of measures to increase their pays, perks and all kinds of unearned privileges. For instance, the parliament arbitrarily decided that Rs 10 million a year could be spent by each MP on development activities on his or her electoral constituency, without any oversight. There has since been a steady stream of reports on the gross mismanagement of this ‘constituency development fund’ (CDC). So our parliamentarians are anything but poor and helpless.  

Instead of the parliament getting to arbitrarily increase the pays and perks of current and former MPs, why not instead have an independent committee that periodically reviews these benefits? Such a committee can include MPs, former judges, economists and civil society members. Surely there is a big conflict of interest when the MPs get to decide, among themselves, the level of state facilities they are entitled to. There is also an urgent need to remove the ambiguities surrounding the CDC, which was based on old unitary demarcations. We think there is no good logic, or a sound ethical reason, to continue with this widely-abused arrangement. Is it too much to ask that the benefits for top state representatives be commensurate with the economic status of the people they represent?